Slashdot Mirror
Your Strategic Plans Probably Aren't Strategic, or Even Plans (hbr.org)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Unfortunately, while C-suite executives talk "strategy," they're often confused about what it means. Why this confusion? The problem starts with the word itself -- a scarily misunderstood concept in management and board circles. The most basic mix-up is between "objective," "strategy," and "action." (I see this frequently in published strategic plans as well.) Grasp this, I tell my audience, and your day will be well spent.
An "objective" is something you're trying to achieve -- a marker of the success of the organization. At the other end of the spectrum is "action." This occurs at the individual level -- a level that managers are presented with day after day. So naturally when they think "strategy" they focus on what they do. But this isn't strategy either. "Strategy" takes place between these two at the organization level and managers can't "feel" that in the same way. It's abstract. CEOs have an advantage here because only they have a total view of the organization.
The key to strategy is that it's the positioning of one business against others -- such GM against Ford and Toyota, for example. What exactly is positioning? It's placement on the strategic factors relevant to each key stakeholder group.
An "objective" is something you're trying to achieve -- a marker of the success of the organization. At the other end of the spectrum is "action." This occurs at the individual level -- a level that managers are presented with day after day. So naturally when they think "strategy" they focus on what they do. But this isn't strategy either. "Strategy" takes place between these two at the organization level and managers can't "feel" that in the same way. It's abstract. CEOs have an advantage here because only they have a total view of the organization.
The key to strategy is that it's the positioning of one business against others -- such GM against Ford and Toyota, for example. What exactly is positioning? It's placement on the strategic factors relevant to each key stakeholder group.
>> CEOs have an advantage...because only they have a total view of the organization.
A CEO fluffer piece from an MBA diploma factory on a slow news Friday. My popcorn's ready...
Let's address the broader problem, shall we?
"Unfortunately, while C-suite executives talk $_ANYTHING they're often confused about what it means."
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
TLDR: Mid-level managers use the word "strategy" to mean BS things that are not strategies. If you groan when you hear the word "leverage" and "synergize" then you aren't one of those people, and there is nothing new in the article.
I found the article confusing because it is clearly aimed at people who can't tell buzzwords from reality. I didn't understand how anyone could use the word "strategy" to mean anything else. It wasn't until I saw the examples and realized "ohhh... THOOOSE kinds of people."
News for nerds, stuff that matters?
So why is it that Military terms are used for business?
You want to make money and not destroy an enemy nation.
Suggest "Thief's Cant" is actually more useful.
Instead of "Revenue" say "Loot". Instead of "Customer" say "Mark."
At this point the question is: Why the fuck are we still on slashdot? Even the trolls aren't funny anymore.
Someone should hack slashcode, fix the logo. Now should read: "News for MBAs, SJWs and other useless airthieves.'
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
An "objective" is something you're trying to achieve -- a marker of the success of the organization. At the other end of the spectrum is "action." This occurs at the individual level -- a level that managers are presented with day after day. So naturally when they think "strategy" they focus on what they do. But this isn't strategy either. "Strategy" takes place between these two at the organization level and managers can't "feel" that in the same way. It's abstract. CEOs have an advantage here because only they have a total view of the organization.
Is the poster seriously expecting business management to use proper grammar? It's hard enough for regular rank-and-file employees to understand these nuances.
I thought it'd be neat to write a virus that lived on network printers and would replace every instance of the word "Strategic" with the word "Satanic" when printing. Sadly, there didn't seem to be any way to open a network socket from the PostScript(tm) layer of the printer, so it would have been unable to spread properly. The "Satanic Plans for Q2" transparencies would definitely have spiced up the board meetings.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The key to success is the following.
1. A product or service good enough not to get legal action against you.
2. A sales and marketing team who can exaggerate how great this product is without crossing the line and making legal actions against you, and who knows the people who have the pockets to buy the product.
If you are going to error, you should error on the side of getting legal action, because if you sell more then the cost of the legal you are still making out.
3. Don't barrow more money then you are able to bring in in the long term (Like Toys R' Us and iHeart Media).
Me, I have too much respect for my work to get past #1. And I suck at sales.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Departments can indeed make strategic plans, we just finished a five year one at work. Strategy doesn't mean what is between the author's ears.
1. What is being described is typically the role of an Enterprise Architect. And this is why EAs should report to the board of directors, not into IT. Enterprise Architecture doesn't mean "Even Bigger Technical Architecture", it means "The Architecture of the Enterprise Itself". Corporate strategy (to the author's point) is about this overarching design (usually done against a framework).
2. If you want to have a successful organization you need to DESIGN the organization in such a way that the right people with the right ideas thrive in it. You need to change the ecosystem, not drain the pond (swamp), start over and hope for a different outcome next time.
For example: If you would like to change "Washington" you don't elect someone who says "I'm going to drain the swamp" because that is a proposed action, or possibly an outcome depending on your point of view. It is not a strategy.
A strategy is "diminish the effectiveness of corporate money-politics and corruption in Washington". An action is "I'm going to turn lobbying into boardroom presentations only". The outcome is "legislation is driven more by popular opinion rather than corporate interests".
Bottom line is that what he is discussing is the role of EA in an organization. Not sure why he doesn't mention it.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
12% of a plan?
Yes, the article is full of buzzwords, but those words do actually have meaning. I agree that more often than not, the words get tossed around, soul sucking meetings had, papers filled out and minutes recorded and nothing actually happens.
But, that doesn't mean the is theory is bad, only the implementation.
In essence, that's what this article is trying to say. Strategy is not about deciding to make a new product or enter a new market. Strategy is about deciding who you are as a company. That's a much bigger, much harder goal and one that I think most of us wish our companies could do. Decide what exactly it is that you're going to do and then go frigging do it!
with very few exceptions. They're the ruling class. That's why corporations have all sorts of legal protections you and I don't have (you don't spill the blood of kings) and why they're never punished for their mistakes (if you're gonna hit the king you better kill the king).
America and all the rest of the world has a strong class divide as well as various caste systems used to divide the working class into manageable chunks that can be rules. Once you realize this everything else makes sense.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What does that have to do with the goddamn TPS reports?
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
This is 90% moonshine, with 10% of substance. The language of business.
At a higher level, strategy should influence whether you fight the war in the first place. For instance, if you have two enemies, your strategy could be to provoke them into attacking each other while you sell arms to both sides.
I think a timewarp from April the first just hit.
CEO's are just ugly alpha males who think they have special insight, they don't, they are just better at stamping on faces better than most people can stomach.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
"Objective - goal - win the war
Strategy - how you will get there in broad terms - drive the enemy back to its borders
Tactics - what you will do in specific terms - bomb the *^&$ out of them"
I'd say your your 'strategy' is just a sub-objective.
Strategy is more the overarching *reasoning* that informs your tactics. Why are you driving the enemy back to its borders? How will that win the war? For example, if the enemy border happens to align with a natural terrain feature - a river that is difficult to cross for example, where defending at that point is easier for you. Or maybe your enemy has excellent antimissile capabilities and air/ground so you can't penetrate their airspace.. but if you can drive them back to their border then your artillery will be able to hit key production facilities, airfields, and impact on fuel / ammunitions / supply lines etc; and will further your edge in conflicts; lead to their airforce being unable to engage. That *reasoning* is the strategy.
Ever work for a big company? - did you have to write down your G&O's ? I always thought WTF is the difference and wrote crap down because I knew that the next year nobody read it anyhow.
Maybe I'm getting old - but do people really ask what the difference is between a Strategy and Action plan? Seriously is that somebody people wonder...and more important didn't know? You got'ur play book - make it happen.
Make it so.
I had him once, briefly for a few months. This guy had been promoted 2 or 3 levels above his ability.
We're in a meeting with the head of dev and we all agree that v2.x, which a few customers wanted continued, was a "tactical release".
We then get onto the new stuff, v3.x which the company was betting it's long term future on. The room called it a "strategic release".
However it then got messy and v3.x started getting pushed aside in favour of v2.x and even saw v3.x getting things changed to suit v2.x needs.
I said "why are we allowing our tactics to dictate our strategy?".
Boss looks at me like a moose chewing cud silently mouthing the words I'd just said while screwing up his face.
The head of dev breaks the silence with "good point!". They moved on and continued with their plans.
If your strategy isn't primary and you let your tactics dictate your long terms plans and actions you are fucked.
I think this story raises a good point, most people don't know what strategy, or tactics, are or can differentiate them.
But isn't the point to have news that a left leaning poster would be interested in, while the comments are only slightly to the left of breitbart? Slashdot comments nowadays makes Hacker news looks like a bunch of hippies.
to words that matter?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Why the fuck are we still on slashdot?
Because there is no other place. I left for a while, wandered on the Interwebs, but in the end, there was no place like the old Slashdot. I mean yes, the new Slashdot is not the old Slashdot, but when you can't get the best, you settle for the second best.
I win.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
To be strategic is to do something in the wider world like countering competitors in an established market, or invading a new market. It intimately involves responses of players you have 0 control over in reality, customers, competitors responses, and investor expectations.
Control freaks, do not apply here. You will fail. Yes you can be a destructive middle manager with some stats you can manipulate to show apparentsuccess, but as soon as you come up against what you have 0 control over you will not know how to respond
To be strategic is to actually be able to balance tactical vs the ultimate aim in a highly skilled way. It is also the skill of looking into what may happen in the future and design counter measures. You will be wrong, but if you are mostly right then that will be good enough you change your view based on those facts.
My reaction too. Can they define "strategy" without using any form of the word in the definition?
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Tactics is all about what tack you're on, so as to be able to fire broadsides at an enemy who can't fire back. Strategy is all about being upwind before the battle ever starts, so you can chose what tack to be on, when your enemy can't.
davecb@spamcop.net
but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.
We have a ruling class. Just like the kings of old. You can even occasionally join it through trickery, guile or just plain extraordinary good fortune. Just like in the old days.
Yes, the world is a complicated place. But that doesn't mean there aren't systems in place that can be recognized. Or that these systems don't exist for the benefit of all mankind. As Gore Vidal put it: I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a conspiracy analyst.
Oh, and Protip: You sounds like some goof from the 90s writing about Sega Genesis games when you use the phrase "Protip".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
My company's senior executives just use the phrase "Strategic Objective" so it can probably cover whatever they want it to.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Posting to undo wrongly cast moderation.
According to Bender https://youtu.be/a2krXq8fw90
I believe that CEO must share crucial information so that its directors and managers can achieve the goals and objectives of the company.
Right? I know. I did the same. Then I started an ALT site called 127.0.0.1, but no-one else responded... Sadly there is no place like old Slashdot - you can never go home...
C!
Recommended Reading: "The Strategy-focussed Organisation". ISBN 1578512506. it's a biiiig book. you can read it, or you can use it to beat your CEO over the head. either way you will feel a lot better about strategy. or you could just subscribe to dilbert. http://dilbert.com/strip/2014-...
but seriously, this is a book that asks the right questions for anyone wanting to know about strategy within an organisation. it asks - and shockingly actually answers - the question, "why should anyone at any level of an organisation CARE about strategy?" and that's actually really really hard to do, because each person in a company has a completely different role to play. strategy therefore *legitimately* means different things to each person, so getting CEOs to care and understand strategy is *only 1/Nth of the company where N is the number of people in it*.
I was part of a "strategy" group of our corporation.
Over time, I found that it was not strategy we were doing, but merely translating and justifying the ideas of the top management.
Today, I'd call it propaganda instead of strategy: to "sell" gueswork and industry hypes to other parts of the organization.
You do need to know the target you're aiming at before you go around shooting, so yes, you need a Goal. You shouldn't just rush off and have everybody hack away randomly, so you need an Approach. And you need to turn those into specific Steps/Tasks so people know what to focus on right now, and so you can measure your outcomes and feed that back.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
"Objective - goal - win the war"
CEO - make as much money as possible.
"Strategy - how you will get there in broad terms - drive the enemy back to its borders"
CEO - Do whatever is necessary to maximize stock value.
"Tactics - what you will do in specific terms - bomb the *^&$ out of them"
CEO - Any decision, no matter how boneheaded, idiotic, and counter to the continued success of the company, that increases stock value, is a good decision. e.g. Downsizing, selling off entire divisions, outsourcing, spending a pittance on security. The stock market punishes outliers: if your peers are doing something, you had better do it too. Downsizing and selling off divisions always hurts a company in the long run, but generally results in a cash infusion (read "stock returns"), and increase in stock value. Outsourcing invariably leads to inferior products, but reduces expenses. If one company does it, and another doesn't, the stock value of the one who didn't goes down. Security? The stock market doesn't care if there's a security breach. No-one gives more than lip-service to it.