A Manifesto for Excellence in Strategic Thinking

Strategic Thinking Manifesto BadgeThere are two good reasons for you to read this article. First, a manifesto can help make strategic thinking more prevalent in your culture. Given the confusion in the field of strategic thinking, a manifesto is in order. Second, the practice of writing one will sharpen your own capabilities to communicate clearly to integrate divergent viewpoints.

~~ ~~ ~~

Manifestos are a literary genre. Generically, they are a tool for making public a set of ideas and advocate for those ideas. Some manifestos are radical in nature, and call for the overthrow of the status quo.  Since strategic thinking needs to be better socialized in organizations, and since the status quo leads to stagnation, the manifesto can be powerful. A manifesto is a call to action; a rejection of conventional ways of doing things.

A Simple Formula for a Manifesto

According to Tristan Tzara, “To launch a manifesto, you have to want A, B, & C and fulminate against 1, 2, & 3.”  It’s a nice straightforward template.  We first identify the kinds of things we want (Tzara’s ABC) and then register our complaints about the current state (Tzara’s 123). The final step is combining the 123s with the ABCs.

A Short List of Desirable Things (Tzara’s ABCs)

By definition, strategic thinking has an orientation towards “success in the future” (see the first article in this blog for the definition of strategic thinking). The word success is multidimensional in meaning. Here is a short listing of desirable things that people would want for the future of their organizations:

Survive and thrive. To win the game. Create wealth for shareholders. Avoid disruption. Be creative: express self and solve problems. Collaborate. Get things done in the here and now. Principles. Leave a better world for our descendants. Hope. Prestige. Coherence. Fairness. Social responsibility. Quality. Enlightenment. Transparency. Accountability.

A comment:  Strategy involves advancing the organization’s interests. All of the above are generically in the interests of most organizations, most of the time.  Because strategy is a kind of specialized problem solving, strategies must establish the relative prioritization of those interests given its current reality.

Social Responsibility is One of Several Interests

Notice many of the items in the above list, for business organizations, fall into the category of social responsibility. This is good news for strategic thinking, because current trends to expand the scope of organizational interests beyond financial metrics means that people are going to be more open minded and flexible in their values.

A Not-So-Short List of Things to Complain About (Tzara’s 123s)

Back to Tzara’s formula for a manifesto. He says a manifesto describes the things – a litany if you will – that we fulminate against. Consider these facets of the current condition:

Failed states and institutions. Short term, selfish behavior. Lack of integrity. Bureaucracy. Sloppy language and terms drained of meaning. Mediocrity. Existing power structures preserve the status quo. Desire for predictability. Excesses of functionalism and synoptic planning. Dogma. Disruption. Polarization in organizations and in society. Narrow, silos focused on strategically-irrelevant activities. Reasoning backward. Nepotism. Multitasking. Isolation and self-doubt. Firefighting and crisis management. Waste, sloth, and inefficiency. Distractions.

They are the current state.  Let’s quickly review current practices about strategic thinking. For most individuals and organizations, there is mediocrity and dysfunction. Most of them have to do with sloppy language. Consider:

  • Some people (erroneously) declare strategic thinking as the front end of the strategy process. First you think about things, and then make plans.
  • Some people (erroneously) use it as a label for their plea to “think about” strategy.
  • Some people (erroneously) use it as an excuse to introduce tools and frameworks of strategy analysis and strategy making.

Now, to top that off, the word “strategy” has been drained of meaning. For some, it is the goal or the vision. For some strategy is the steps to an objective. For some, it is an inspirational mission and vision.  Hence, the value of Richard Rumelt’s practice identifying good strategy so as to distinguish from bad strategy (bad strategy being the norm for most organizations).

I don’t know about you, but the current state of strategic thinking is populated by lazy people, cowards, charlatans, and the misinformed.  It makes me angry, and it believe that competency in strategic thinking and clarity of good strategy is a fight worth fighting!

Putting it All Together into A Manifesto

Following Tzara’s formula and the items listed above, we now have a template.  Here is what you write for the first part of the manifesto:

The current state of the world is ____ (select from your 1-2-3 list).  You continue with a statement that you find the current state unacceptable. If you want, reject it outright (the Latin roots of the word manifesto translate into “hostile hand”). This is unacceptable to us.

As you establish the current state is unacceptable, you move forward with a call to action. That is where the A-B-C list is helpful. You select from those “interests.” that are most basic, perhaps referring to them as original (first principles). In political discourse, you’ll find often reference to God in some (USA’s Declaration of Independence or Martin Luther King Jr’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail) or rationality (again, the Declaration of Independence and add to that Communist Manifesto). In artistic discourse, you’ll simply note that the prior state lacks truth or integrity.  In business, you’ll often find the reference point the founder’s values (care for the customer, frugality, excellence).

~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~

Here my first cut at a manifesto:

A Manifesto for Strategic Thinking

Current practice in strategic thinking and strategy-making  is poor. Those leaders of organizations who hold misconceptions about strategy and strategic thinking are putting at risk the future of their organizations, and are not fulfilling their fiduciary obligations to shareholders and social responsibilities to stakeholders.

History shows our organizations and institutions are constantly under threat of disruption. If we are incumbents, we need to overcome the stubbornness of the status quo. If we can ethically gain advantage for ourselves by disrupting the status quo, we should take advantage of opportunities presented to us.

Board of Directors should replace leaders who can’t competently practice strategic thinking and can create good strategy. Corporate Governance should audit for good strategy and not just supporting verbiage for budgetary projections.

Leaders at all levels must invest in learning and practicing strategic thinking. People at all levels need to have a clear understanding of what good strategy is and is not. Further, they need to clearly understand what strategic thinking is and is not

With clear and reasonable understanding of the foundation concepts, any person can practice strategic thinking. In working with their organizations, they can develop and implement good strategy. It simply takes courage to identify and face up to challenges, the willingness to invest resources, and combine the resources with action.

Yanshevsky writes, “The author of a manifesto sees himself first and foremost as a researcher, an inventor, a discoverer.” Do you agree?  

Could Strategy Be As Simple As This?

Strategic thinking is purposeful, and one purpose is to spark strategic insights. These insights make it easier to make decisions.

This article’s proposition is that strategy involves three choices by the strategist: choice of scope, choice of objective,  and choice of advantage. These choices do not constitute strategy, but answering them puts you on the course to actually having a strategy and not just a list of goals and initiatives.

What is the scope of our venture?

Scope is a term used to mean what is “in” and “out” of consideration. In other words, what is the definition of the venture? It could refer to the firm, the program, the team, or the individual.

The following sub-questions can help the strategist in partitioning and defining the scope of strategy:

  • Are we thinking big, or small?
  • Where is our geographic domain? Local, regional, expatriate, or global?
  • When we think about the venture as a “solution provider,” to what extent do we want to produce the solution, sell the solution, and service the solution? Stated differently, what part of the value chain do we want to operate in? Are there unexploited or under-exploited opportunities to capture value?
  • Is there anything that the venture explicitly won’t do?

What objective(s) do we choose to pursue?

The strategist first considers the circumstances – diagnosis – and selects an objective that best fits her diagnosis of the situation. Next, they choose an objective that is most sensible for the stakeholders.

The following sub-questions can help the strategist in identifying strategic objectives:

  • How do we think about success?
  • If we commit to a stretch goal, can we acquire the resources that will get us to the goal?

Critical thinking is a component of strategic thinking. Activate the logic to see if the objective is sensible.

For example, I once worked for a CEO said, “We grew revenues 35% last year, so our goal for next year is 35%.” That probably qualifies as a BHAG: a Big Hairy Audacious Goal.  BHAGs can be be useful if they are based on a logic and commitment to apply resources. They can be discouraging if there is no underlying design.

Who or what are we trying to gain advantage over?

Most people have heard this joke.

Strategic thinkers outrun the bearTwo campers come upon an angry bear. The first says, “I’m glad I wore my running shoes.” The second says, “you can’t outrun the bear.” The first says, “I don’t have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.”

Sometimes it is only a small advantage that allows our success. But nevertheless, it is an advantage. Strategy is about leveraging a small advantage – and combining it with other advantages – so as to gain a more significant advantage.

Here are three sub-questions that help to identify the areas where the strategist can find advantage:

  • Who are the competitors and where is their focus and power?
  • What alternatives are available (including the “do nothing” alternative)?
  • Is the identified advantage actually important to the customer (or other important stakeholders)?

As it pursues its objectives, the venture needs to provide something of value to its stakeholders. There are always competitive alternatives and substitutes available to these stakeholders; for customers, its other product/service offerings; for                            not-for-profits, it is a competition for attention for funding or policy.

Conclusion

These three decisions do not comprise a complete definition of strategy, but they do provide a useful framing perspective. Insights are often simple ideas that tell us about the essence of something.

As you consider your answers, consider how you would blend them together into a problem-solving or opportunity-capturing design.

Do you agree that this is a simple way to think about strategy? How can a strategist apply the questions?