Strategy Shmategy

“…the analogy between the noises we make when these noises do not symbolize anything which exists, and the worthless checks we write when our bank balance is zero…" - Alfred Korzybski

A couple of weeks ago I had dinner with my folks, which was attended by several of their friends. After the expected barrage of questions like "when are you getting married" and "do you have a girlfriend," the trail of questions made a hard stop at "what do you do for a living?"

I smiled at my mother as she attempted to answer that question. "He does something called strategy (pronounced ‘straggety') and design." While their assumptions for design were acknowledged (thinking that I'm in fashion - which I am not), they inquired about what strategy was. I struggled and ultimately responded with "I'm a guy that creates value for all stakeholders." With puzzled looks on their faces, they looked at each other, "steak? Beef?” and "Value? Like Walmart?” (For most of them at the table, English was their second or third language)

In my attempt to explain, I used the analogy of war, as several men at the table were once in the military. A general assesses the chances of victory and also thinks of risks and costs of "moves." He/she then plans how to achieve objectives and relays this vision to his leaders, who then relay this to the other men. This explanation was incredibly broad, as this description could describe any person in any industry. 

So, let’s assume that a large portion of the work force is strategic in nature or requires a comprehension of being strategic...also assuming that the description I gave my family friends was sound.

Looking inside organizations, we will find that strategic output/process is aggressively overpopulated with more tactical thinking, analytic tools, irrelevant/redundant models, and intellectual friction than actual valuable strategic output. This is understandable, as tactical thinking can certainly be more invigorating for some than the due diligence of insight finding. It’s often easier to fill out and follow templated models than to deep dive for hidden insights. We know, however, that there is a low “return” on this vain process.

A symptom of this is an immense semantic saturation of the word or derivations of the word, “strategy.” This confusion can become a clear indication of why a project may miss its mark or lack impact.

So, let's look at another analogy closer to my heart. To casual players, poker is a gambling game - an outcome heavily dependent on chance. For avid poker players, however, it is more speculative - a series of strong educated guesses where they can assess and control their outcome. Roulette, on the other hand requires minimal skills to be able to play. Both require an understanding of the rules and the range of payout/odds can be very similar. In roulette, you can be “strategic" in selecting possible outcomes - but the outcome has very little to do with your decision making process. You may try and guess your way through with superstitious rituals or try to find patterns that justify your decisions. In the end, this is quite futile because it’s still a guessing game. In poker, luck is a factor, but a player will always play against other players. Often throughout the game, a player may be at a disadvantage, but this does not equate to ultimate loss. A poker player assesses chance, reads opponents, perceives threats, positions/builds a reputation at a table, and retreats/remains/advances with real objectives in mind.

So, as the industry would define it, being strategic is to be of strategy. Though semantically, this is correct, this is not realized in practice. A sound poker player is truly strategic and methods are derived from a strategy. While a roulette player may observe their own practice as being “strategic,” it is in fact, an unaware individual stepping to a dance that has little effect on the outcome in question.

Forecasting and effecting outcomes is a tiresome and difficult task that aims to meet the “sweet spot” between luck and skill. Therefore, strategy aims to mitigate/address risk (or negative outcomes) by means of skill, evidence, insights, and experience to compensate where there may be variability.

Be wary of what is referred to being “strategy" or “strategic.” Some signs to look out for:

• Is the strategy truly unique? Is it a plug & play or copied from another project? Boilerplate solutions rarely create enough value. Why settle for this when real insight can lead to truly innovative and impactful solutions? 
• How flexible is your methodology? Can it accommodate for scale, industry, disruptive forces?
• Are you planning to measure and adjust? Even great strategies often miss their mark - and great strategists know that success comes from an iterative process. Lacking a measurement plan may suggest that the strategy is a load of BS.

“Strategy is not the consequence of planning, but the opposite: it’s the starting point.” – Henry Mintzberg

• Who is leading the battle? Much like a QA specialist does in a product development process, a strategy should be qualified in some way (e.g. testing, data, experience). Has your strategist built a reputation for qualifying their logic?
• Is the problem you’re solving for provided to you? Is the problem written in the form of a solution? Be wary of this - it is oft how the problem has been framed that results in poor solutions.
• Focusing heavily on the medium can distract from staying true to process. Be careful that conversations are not merely around technology or data. Refrain from being stuck on conversations around “digital.” Low-tech solutions can generate immense impact if it is appropriate and big budgets don’t necessarily equate to large returns.

Much like design, strategy in itself should be void of a subject matter - not the sum of models, methodologies, and branded processes. It should adopt the true problem at hand as its primary subject matter and employ the use of appropriate mediums to find a unique issue. Shooting blindly and immediately converging to solutions is not only void of true strategic thought, but also loses opportunities to create some really badass value.