
Your Strategic Plans Probably Aren't Strategic, or Even Plans (hbr.org) 120
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.
popcorn: ready (Score:5, Funny)
A CEO fluffer piece from an MBA diploma factory on a slow news Friday. My popcorn's ready...
Re:popcorn: ready (Score:5, Informative)
Fluffer
A fluffer is a person employed to keep a male porn performer's penis erect on the set. These duties, which do not necessarily involve touching the actors, are considered part of the makeup department. Wikipedia
LMAO
Re: (Score:3)
yes, an MBA or other exec under a senior exec
Re: (Score:2)
I ask attendees, who rank from board members and CEOs to middle management, to write down an example of a strategy on a sheet of paper
To crush our enemies. See them driven before you. And to hear the lamentations of their women.
Re: (Score:3)
CEOs are often surrounded by sycophants. Much like a king's court, they serve to filter the information that reaches the ruler. And often, particularly if they have their own agenda, they can steer decisions to suit themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
CEOs are often surrounded by sycophants. Much like a king's court, they serve to filter the information that reaches the ruler. And often, particularly if they have their own agenda, they can steer decisions to suit themselves.
s/CEOs/Presidents/
Re: (Score:2)
Not just CEOs. It's a corollary to the peter principle, the name of which escapes me: When people have reached their level of incompetence they, at some level, know it. To better hide, they proceed to surround themselves with even more incompetent people.
In a large, old organizations, you will often find whole groups that appear to be inexplicably incompetent, as in your initial reaction is: 'They can't be that bad, things are running aren't they?' They usually put on something along the lines of: 'there
Re: (Score:2)
Paraphrasing the peter principle for what purpose?
It's elegantly stated: 'Everybody is promoted to their level of incompetence and then stays there'
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I've made a career out of telling CEOs about key bits of information that people in their organization knew, but their inner circle did their best to never mention. It's crazy how often we think that there's something that 'everyone knows that everyone knows', but that in reality is unknown by execs.
Another common trope is how managers have both upward-focused skills and downward focused skills. So many managers of managers end up being completely unaware that a manager is terrible dealing with their r
Re: (Score:2)
The quote in the summary alone was a good WTF.
First sentence, yup, can believe that. Second sentence, business types find words scary? Okay. From there on... WTF?
Re:Goal vs. Strategy vs. tactics (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Goal vs. Strategy vs. tactics (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
I like Goal Approach Steps/Tasks (loop) (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
My company's senior executives just use the phrase "Strategic Objective" so it can probably cover whatever they want it to.
Re: (Score:2)
"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, spend
We can generalize this. (Score:2)
Let's address the broader problem, shall we?
"Unfortunately, while C-suite executives talk $_ANYTHING they're often confused about what it means."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.'
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
C!
Re:Hold on (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Summary: Managers use buzzwords (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:Summary: Managers use buzzwords (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
and not a single variation of 'disrupt' ? 9/10 though, well played sir.
Ahem (Score:2)
News for nerds, stuff that matters?
Re: (Score:2)
My reaction too. Can they define "strategy" without using any form of the word in the definition?
These are all military terms (Score:5, Funny)
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."
Re: (Score:1)
Re:These are all military terms (Score:5, Informative)
So why is it that Military terms are used for business?
What, didn't you read The Art of the Deal by Sun Tzu?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it's being reprinted on Ferenginar by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they used all the sports terms already?
It's called "corporate speak" for a reason... (Score:2)
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.
s/Strategic/Satanic/g (Score:5, Funny)
Most things CEO say are probably wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
wrong, consult your dictionary (Score:2)
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.
Two Thoughts (Score:2)
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 pe
Re: (Score:2)
I am finding this conception of strategy is weak on practical guidance. It is nice to say these here is our object and here are strategic objectives informed by our strategy, that has some value for planning things that are easy, but that is not enough when things are complicated.
TFA mentions the example, say, Toyota touting its safety. But that seems like little more than a marketing tactic to me. Is Toyota spending enough engineering resources on its safety right now? Could it get a bigger budget for
is it even (Score:3)
Another perspective (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
See, I was with you up to the example. Words do have meanings. Strategy is a word, and it has a meaning. It means "a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major overall aim."
It doesn't mean deciding who you are (navel gazing?), or whatever the hell the article thinks it means (as far as I can tell the author doesn't actually settle on a definition).
Your example of irony is neither ironic nor an exa (Score:2)
According to Bender https://youtu.be/a2krXq8fw90
C-class aren't employees (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you realize this everything else makes sense.
You mean: Once you pick an ideology with which to interpret everything you see, you can easily make everything fit into your ideology. Which helps to make it feel like everything makes sense.
Protip: The world is a messy, complicated place. If everything makes sense, you're almost certainly misinterpreting and oversimplifying.
No that's not what I meant (Score:2)
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:
What does that have to do with... (Score:2)
Mostly moonshine (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that a Goal or Objective? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
How about let's throw in some more letters: OGSM [wikipedia.org] is clearly superior!
Re: (Score:2)
nope - didn't have to do that one. phew! It's good to have goals so that everyone is on the same page. But I found Actions tended to be based on folks reviewing the Goals as interpretive dance. It's amazing how off track a large company can be. We all hear the same thing but a large number of people still stick to their original plan. Then your manager says, "that's not the plan, ignore that team, don't help them."
I remember a project where the big honcho business leader said "after reviewing the
Dilbert's Boss (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
A good strategy is generally going to play on your tactical strengths. Which isn't the same thing as letting your 'tactics dictate your strategy'.
3.0 bett\er solve all the business problems 2.0 did. Depends on what you meant by 'v2.x needs'. Many times old versions need to have stakes driven through their hearts. But that's after _years_ of support. Just corporate reality, 2.0 will live on years after 3.0 does everything. Until 3.0 does everything the clock doesn't even start.
When 'head of dev' is herd
Re: (Score:1)
yup.. people can tell strategy from tactics , but their personal strategies or tactics don't necessarily align with those of the organization's or people around.
from stuff that matters (Score:2)
to words that matter?
Bingo! (Score:2)
You can't be strategic and a control freak (Score:2)
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 h
It's all about sailing ships (Score:2)
Don't read me (Score:2)
I agree (Score:1)
Recommended Reading (Score:2)
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-... [dilbert.com]
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
Strategy or Propaganda? (Score:2)
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.