This is a series on business mis-communication, which occurs through the use of abbreviations and buzzwords, bluffing, inconsistent interpretations of key concepts, our attempts to make sense of things we don’t understand without putting the effort into learning, and applying different values. The word for this article is Strategy – I will describe the origin and meaning, and how it can be communicated (but not how to make one).
History
The word strategy comes form the Greek “strategia”, meaning “the art of commanding the army.” Historically, the Greek nation-states would choose from among their prominent people one who would be in charge of the army during a year. He would have presented a set of aims for the city-state (“polis” in Greek) and would be given a fairly free hand to achieve them with certain resources centered around the army. The same term would be used for the commander, if city-states formed a common league. The same ideas can be found later in Egypt and China (“The Art of War” by Sun Tzu being the epitome). The word only came into English in the 18th century, with much the same meaning, though it grew to include political as well as armed actions. It was first used in the business arena at the end of the 1950’s, and took off with the management consultancy firms BCG, Bain, Arthur D Little and McKinsey, thereby losing all its military significance.
Application
The idea of strategy brings with it the following points:
- There is an agreed aim which “belongs” to one person;
- This aim will be detrimental to another party (city-state, business etc.)
- That person is allotted authority to achieve this aim, within a limited time and with limited resources;
- A committee oversees the resources and commander, to whom he is accountable;
- The tactics employed are made by the commander without oversight.
There is an overall sense of a reachable objective and some actions along the way, which differentiates it from Vision, which addresses why things are to be done rather than what is to be done. See also my previous article on the differences. It is different from Tactics, which are to the strategy what individual battles are to a war, or what limited actions in one domain are to the business aim as a whole.
Limitations of using military metaphors
While the term originates in military actions, the business arena has suffered from over-emphasizing the historical use. Of the five elements noted above, the second in particular is typical of a “zero-sum game” approach; you win, someone-else loses; you are many competing for a better piece of the same pie. This is assumed in most management literature about competition and strategy. In my experience, it is worth considering whether this is a handicap; it can be replaced by emphasizing the good that the objectives will achieve for the wider community or the general vision.
Indeed, business strategy was not necessarily intended to convey anything military, this seems to have crept in later. At the start of the Boston Consulting Group, the story goes, “[Bruce Henderson] asked what we thought [BCG’s] specialty should be. Many suggestions were offered, but in each case we were able to identify several other firms that already had strong credentials in that particular area. The discussion began to stall. Then Bruce asked a momentous question: ‘What about business strategy?’ I objected: ‘That’s too vague. Most executives won’t know what we’re talking about.’ Bruce replied, ‘That’s the beauty of it. We’ll define it.’
Communicating business strategy
Traditional approach: avoiding strategy communication generates employee distrust
Many believe that communicating about strategy would give away information to the competition, much like military commanders announcing where and when they will attack, allowing the enemy to defend effectively, or inviting them to compete in the same area. This has applied to internal communication as much as external, as the thinking is that anyone who leaves the company will carry their knowledge of the strategy to the “enemy”. This limits communication to mileposts along the way – launching a new product, winning business, acquisitions, share price changes and the like.
It is not therefore surprising that employee surveys generally find a very low appreciation of company strategy. Indeed, in larger firms the lengthy strategic exercise done each year, setting out the strategy for three to five years, is often regarded as a sop to the board of directors, a paper exercise, leaving the directors or VPs to concentrate on financial returns. Since Generation Y and Millennial culture demand more assurance about the content and purpose of their jobs, distrust of management is likely to increase unless deliberate attempts are made to communicate strategy.
Alternative approach: profit from regular opportunities to speak of strategy within the company values and vision framework, to generate employee engagement
Core message: Your employees are critical resources involved in the strategy execution, which makes the company better than all others, which is relevant to the company vision, which is a positive thing.
Communicating strategy is largely an internal affair. The challenges and responses I suggest are:
- Overcoming the fear of giving away confidential information: be clear at top level what is confidential and what is not. This requires communication skills and trust. If you feel that certain people need insights, then do it by word of mouth and insist on confidentiality. Also, keep strategic messages simple and explanatory. You don’t need to talk about strategy as much as vision or success stories; once a year is OK in my experience. Set up a calendar of communication and cascading, but leave flexibility so that the local managers can arrange communication according to local needs.
- Making the strategy credible: put your purpose or vision at the center, make it relevant for yourself, invest in time to communicate, ensure that the employees are aware of what makes them different, and refer to the market realities. If strategy is just a paper exercise for you, there is no way you can make it relevant to others. Use customer insights and stories to reinforce the correctness of the strategy. Do not underestimate your employees: they talk with each other and are well aware of performance, the market and customers!
- Making the strategy relevant to the employees: show how it affects you as a person, and cascade properly through multiple channels to ensure that everyone gets the message – not forgetting to translate! Using a framework can help reinforce relevance. Use opportunities to skip levels where the culture allows. Don’t hesitate to explain strategic decisions: it isn’t a question of “what if we tell them and then they leave?”, rather “what happens if we don’t tell them and they stay?”
References
The Lords of Strategy by Walter Kiechel. A view of the development of the use of “strategy” in the business arena.
