If your employer has provided you with Career Transition Support through Optimum Talent, click here to get started.
I recently received an email from a client in regard to how we might refresh their strategic plan in the fall. Â A recent hire with a background in strategic planning had reviewed the organizationâs existing strategic plan and provided perspective on how it could be improved. I reviewed the ideas â agreed with some, disagreed with others.
Essentially, it came down to two concepts – we needed to improve the clarity on terminology used within the plan and find better means to execute it.
In this post I am primarily going to focus on terminology and in subsequent posts will focus on the challenges of strategic execution (also known as âoperationalizingâ the strategic plan).
The challenge with strategic planning lingo is that everyone has a different definition and/or opinion for the same terms.
Try Googling âstrategyâ or any common strategic planning terms (strategic, objective, mission, vision, strategies, tactics⊅).  Youâll get a myriad of results that when investigated further, are typically not aligned.  From the military origins of the word, to the PhDâs analysis, to the new-world redefinition, to the expert in the discussion forum – all this effort really results in is mass confusion to the business owner that was simply searching for a bit of clarity.
I felt, however, that I needed to provide my client with some guidance on what terms we should adopt for our planning efforts in the fall. So I dove further into my collection of MBA strategy
textbooks and literature, our firmâs strategic planning methodology and even braved more Google searches.
It was fruitless.  I concluded that the terminology is subjective but the concepts remain the same:
Therefore, does the language matter if you can clearly communicate within your strategic plan the answers to the latter three questions?
I would suggest that it doesnât make a difference. Strategy is about making a set of choices amongst alternatives that if successfully executed, will result in a desired outcome (and, from a
corporate perspective – a competitive advantage). If you can clearly communicate the choices that have been made and what the organization is going to focus on (Question #2) amongst competing alternatives you are forming the basis of a good strategic plan.
In Richard Rumeltâs upcoming book âGood Strategy/Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why it Mattersâ he provides examples of why organizations mistake goals for strategy and develop fuzzy strategic objectives and hence have difficulty in defining and subsequently executing the âhow you are going to do itâ portion.
Is the strategic objective / goal âwe will double our business in five yearsâ a good strategy? Rumeltâs position would be that this is a stretch goal and doesnât really provide direction on the choices
the organization has made or where the focus will be on a few important items. Good strategy as defined by Rumelt âworks by focusing energy and resources on one, or a very few, pivotal objectives whose accomplishment will lead to a cascade of favorable outcomesâ.
So, the important part of strategic planning isnât the terminology that has been used in its development; itâs the decisions (or âchoicesâ) that have been made and the clear articulation of them. âWhat you are going to doâ and âHow you are going to do itâ is more important.
So why do we all have an opinion on it, if it is so simple â itâs because setting good strategy is difficult. Even more difficult, is executing the strategy that has been set. Therefore, many organizations exude too much time and effort on âstrategyâ and the results donât achieve the desired outcomes as described in the plan – we all develop our own perspective on what is good strategy because few get it right.
And, that is my opinionâŠ.
— Dustin Anderson