Words are important to me; I hold them in reverence. Having started as a journalist I learned early to write with economy. Choosing the right word when you are on deadline and have limited space is good basic journalism. We're talking parsimony.
It frustrates me when I see a good word diminished through overuse and/or misuse. And two of my favorite words, strategic (and its cousin strategy) are losing their true meaning as politicians, newscasters and even bloggers appropriate them to mean something else.
I'm afraid the term strategic has become a trendy word used to add gloss to otherwise mundane things. The abusers apparently think a noun gains importance when preceded by the adjective, strategic. In their thinking a plan is just a plan, but a "strategic" plan… well that's something special.
As a strategic planner, I would agree a strategic plan is very special, but not just because we slap a fancy label in front of one or another kinds of plans.
I want to recapture the simple, but correct meaning of the word because, used appropriately, the term strategic is plenty powerful. Those who commit the sin of making the term strategic mean too many things rob us of real value of the word and the process it implies.
Strategy refers to the process of determining the position you want to be in the future. It is always a better position than the one presently occupied. The term has roots in military science and is best understood alongside a similarly misunderstood term, tactics. Tactics are the things you do to achieve your overall strategy. A good example: the Allied strategy in June, 1944 was to put pressure on the German axis by adding a western front through the tactic of invading France through Normandy.
The difference between strategy and tactics is easily seen in business and foreign policy. Coke wanted to strategically hold the dominant marketshare, so it tactically launched New Coke (and when that backfired, just as quickly adopted the tactic of retreat. Hey, there's no guarantee that the strategy is correct or that the tactics will succeed. That's why developing a good plan demands attention to both setting the "right" strategy and finding effective tactics).
One more example, close to our daily lives: the US aims to protect strategically its economic interest in the Middle East while assuring the survival of Israel; how the American government addresses a nuclear threat in Iran is all tactics.
The precise meaning of these terms affects your strategic plan. In most cases, the overall strategy adopted by businesses and associations is derived from its vision: the idealized statement of the position its leadership wants the organization to occupy in the future. What follows in goals, objectives and action plans are tactical choices of what needs to be done to gain the desired position.
I my mind, for something to be strategic it must meet one of three criteria:
- Left unaddressed, the issue threatens the ability of the organization to meet is mission (that is, to continue to occupy a position of any advantage).
- Presents the possibility for unprecedentedly high levels of performance in pursuit of the organization's mission or fulfillment of its vision..
- Represents a response to a future opportunity (or threat) to accomplish the organization's vision.
All the stuff necessary to keep turning the crank to achieve the mission is still important, but it is usually not strategic and is rightfully addressed in a business plan.
My advice, a kind of corollary to a Duke's Rule (make it 34b): don't confuse strategy with tactics; reserve for strategic those things most likely to shape the future welfare of the organization.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment