Strategy
Strategy
is all these — it is perspective, position, plan, and pattern.
Strategy is the bridge between policy or high-order goals on the one
hand and tactics, or concrete actions on the other. Strategy and tactics
together straddle the gap between ends and means. In short, strategy
is a term that refers to a complex web of thoughts, ideas, insights,
experiences, goals, expertise, memories, perceptions, and expectations
that provides general guidance for specific actions in pursuit of particular
ends.
Strategy is at once the course we chart, the journey we imagine and,
at the same time, it is the course we steer, the trip we actually make.
Even when we are embarking on a voyage of discovery, with no particular
destination in mind, the voyage has a purpose, an outcome, an end to
be kept in view.
Strategy, then, has no existence apart from the ends sought. It is
a general framework that provides guidance for actions to be taken and,
at the same time, is shaped by the actions taken. This means that the
necessary precondition for formulating strategy is a clear and widespread
understanding of the ends to be obtained. Without these ends in view,
action is purely tactical and can quickly degenerate into nothing more
than a flailing about.
When there are no "ends in view" for the organization at
large, strategies still exist and they are still operational, even highly
effective, but for an individual or unit, not for the organization as
a whole. The risks of not having a set of company-wide ends clearly
in view include missed opportunities, fragmented and wasted effort,
working at cross purposes, and possibly interdepartmental warfare. A
comment from Lionel Urwick's classic Harvard Business Review article
regarding the span of control is applicable here:
"There is nothing which rots morale more quickly and more
completely than the feeling that those in authority do not know their
own minds."
For the leadership of an organization to remain unclear or to vacillate
regarding ends, strategy, tactics and means is to not know their own
minds. The accompanying loss of morale is enormous.
One possible outcome of such a state of affairs is the emergence of
a new dominant coalition within the existing authority structure of
the enterprise, one that will augment established authority in articulating
the ends toward which the company will strive. Also possible is the
weakening of authority and the eventual collapse of the formal organization.
No amount of strategizing or strategic planning will compensate for
the absence of a clear and widespread understanding of the ends sought.
The Practical Question: How?
How does one determine, articulate and communicate company-wide ends?
How does one ensure understanding and obtain commitment to these ends?
The quick answers are as follows:
- The ends to be obtained are determined through discussions and debates
regarding the company's future in light of its current situation.
Even a SWOT analysis (an assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities
and Threats) is conducted based on current perceptions.
- The ends settled on are articulated in plain language, free from
flowery words and political "spin." The risk of misdirection
is too great to tolerate unfettered wordsmithing. Moreover, the ends
are communicated regularly, repeatedly, through a variety of channels
and avenues. There is no end to their communication.
Understanding is ensured via discussion, dialog and even debate, in
a word, through conversations. These conversations are liberally sprinkled
with examples, for instances, and what ifs. Initially, the CEO bears
the burden of these conversations with staff. As more people come to
understand and commit to the ends being sought, this communications
burden can be shared with others. However, the CEO can never completely
relinquish it. The CEO is the keeper of the vision and, periodically,
must be seen reaffirming it.
Ultimately, the ends sought can be expressed via a scorecard or some
other device for measuring and publicly reporting on company performance.
Individual effort can then be assessed in light of these same ends.
Suppose, for instance, that a company has these ends in mind: improved
customer service and satisfaction, reduced costs, increased productivity,
and increasing revenues from new products and services. It is a simple
and undeniably relevant matter for managers to periodically ask the
following questions of the employees reporting to them:
- What have you done to improve customer service?
- What have you done to improve customer satisfaction?
- What have you done to reduce costs?
- What have you done to increase productivity?
- What have you done to increase revenues from new products and services?
The Decisions Are the Same
No matter which definition of strategy one uses, the decisions called
for are the same. These decisions pertain to choices between and among
products and services, customers and markets, distribution channels,
technologies, pricing, and geographic operations, to name a few. What
is required is a structured, disciplined, systematic way of making these
decisions. Using the "driving forces" approach is one option.
Choosing on the basis of "value disciplines" is another. Committing
on the basis of "value-chain analysis" is yet a third. Using
all three as a system of cross-checks is also a possibility.
Source: http://www.work911.com/cgi-bin/links/jump.cgi?ID=4196
See more Quality Tips
