It is my
belief that almost everything that we touch, hear, or interact with, is context
driven. The “Strategy” isn’t an exception either.
Normally,
whenever this topic comes up for discussion, or even the word “Strategy” is
whispered, people get little conscious, and they are either afraid to share
their thoughts, or are hesitant, while sharing their thoughts.
This single word
can create so much of anxiety, and I can think of only two reasons for it;
first, people have misconstrued the meaning of it, or get bogged down with the
association of this word to corporate boardroom, or epitomes of governmental
agencies. Second, in their minds, they associate it with Porter, BCG-Growth,
GE-McKinsey, PEST, SWOT, Competitor analysis or some other models.
Are these
models the strategy? Is it really applicable only in corporate boardrooms?
My
understanding, may be little over simplistic; however, when I consider
“Strategy”, the words that zoom across my mind are, options / alternates /
choices, assessment / evaluation, goals, plans, execution, problem statement,
solution and activities.
It is
obvious that when someone or a group of people formulate a “Strategy”, it is
for a cause, i.e. they have a problem / riddle to solve, to achieve the desired
goal / outcome. What it means, there is a goal / outcome, which can be
measured, and against which a progress can be monitored.
It is
obvious that in order to formulate a path to achieve the desired goal /
outcome, one has to consider and evaluate options available, and then make a
choice for optimum option, aligning with desired goal. How can one evaluate
those conditions / options, depends on the nature of problem statement, and you
may end up in utilizing one of “Strategic Management” tools / models, as
mentioned above, or some other data / tools, which suit the need of evaluation.
Though one
point is obvious that tools / models in themselves are not strategy, rather
those facilitate the decision making. Or, in other words, narrowing down on
available options, to form a preferred choice.
Depending on
the level of decision making, i.e. the level at which the overall strategy has
been defined, corporates would see the need to create sub, or functional
strategies, complementing the overall strategy. Again, one may, or may not
require functional strategies, or even use of mentioned model to form a
strategy, as it all depends on the context and the need.
Now, in
order to convert the strategy into reality, one also needs to convert this in
executable / implementable plan, and execute it. Needless, to say that actual
will have variation to plan, and will require monitoring, and adjustment either
to the plan, or strategy itself. The changes to strategy could be on account of
impediments / limitations that one come across, while executing, or those could
also be due to changing environmental conditions, necessitating change in
strategy. That is, it required governance of variation, and adjustment to
provide revised / corrected direction.
One school
of thought separates planning and execution (especially, the execution) from
strategy; however, in reality it is hard to separate both because of inter
dependencies. As the unfocused execution results in sub-optimal performance,
similarly, only strategy formulation, with no practical implementation would
not result in any improvement in current state. That is why, the other school
of thought considers execution an integral part of strategy, and rightly so.
If you look
at the historical work around strategy, there were elements of positional
(differentiation, pricing etc.), creation of new markets, or disrupting the
existing to create a new...etc. The today’s dynamic world, with startups
springing every day, in every field, with easy access to technology and recent
disruptions in technology, one may wonder, whether there is a scope for
long-term strategies that one used to see in past, or in specific industries?
It is true
that these advancements and disruptions have created an environment, where
long-term visions, and long drawn strategies no longer work, or at least are
not that effective. As those need to adapt to continuously changing landscape,
and associated conditions, to remain relevant, leave aside being effective.
I would not
say that those organizations or entities operate with no strategy, as it will
be hard to imagine an entity operating aimlessly, with no expected goal /
outcome insight. Rather, I’d consider it a case where strategy lifespan is very
short, and it changes / adapts itself to changing conditions, and landscape.
One may say that those resemble to tactics rather than strategy (because of
lifespan of the strategy); however, the primary difference between the two will
be in form of accomplishing things within available means / resources, or
devising the means and activities to established goals.
Though I do
not rule out that it could be a combination of both. But then it will not be
appropriate to trivialize the tactics too.
No comments:
Post a Comment