My last title in industry before moving to teaching was Chief Strategy Officer, and the weight of the expectations attached to that title weighed on me. ‘Strategery’ and ‘wizardry’ are often seen as one and the same by clients and others in the agency – the expectation that the strategist can spin the gold of sales and profits from the straw of research and data surrounding today’s modern brands. And while I am first in line to say that excellent strategy is essential to business success, the expectations surrounding strategy often create barriers to creating excellent strategy.
For instance, there is a tension between the expectations of strategy and the truth that the first characteristic of truly excellent strategy is simplicity. It is difficult to get paid handsomely for simplicity. It is difficult to get simplicity taken seriously. The presentation of simplicity is often anti-climactic. Many times, at the end of the strategy presentation, the reaction to simplicity by the attendees is often to mutter to each other as they leave the conference room that anyone could have done that.
The response to this by many strategists has been to create a great deal of strategical liturgy, to make the strategy they have presented to seem more mystical, more ritual, more complex and most importantly, more expensive. Colorful graphs and complex metaphors abound. Above all, the message is that the rites of strategy cannot be performed by just anyone. Not just anyone can come into the tent of strategy and emerge with the answers; thus, the strategist proves their value.
Which brings me to the task of teaching second-year undergraduate advertising majors in APR 270, our class on Strategic Thinking. Given that we require this class of all students in the major, there is a built-in assumption that anyone can think strategically. This is a little d democratic view of strategy – one that rejects the need for a priestly class of strategists, anointed to conduct the rituals of strategy. It is a view that strategic thinking can be, and should be, done by anyone and everyone.
There are a number of things that I do in the class to make this point that make strategy less elitist, but here is one controversial take that I bring to class – there is no such thing as tactics - at least from the standpoint that strategy and tactics are separate things, with strategy being higher order kinds of statements or activities than tactics.
We’ve all heard that distinction being made as critical eyes pass over a list of initiatives. “That’s just a bunch of tactics,” someone will say, “What we need is a strategy.” But for many people, students included, it’s often hard to decide where the line is between strategy and tactics. And that line is often drawn by upper management and organizational leadership, who claim ownership of the ability to discern between strategy and tactics, but sometimes don’t have any better idea of the difference than their junior staff. Thus, the line that gets drawn between strategy and tactics is drawn between “things that don’t have any specific follow up and actions” and “things that need to get done that are beneath my pay grade”.
This conflicts with the simple definition of strategy that I live by – strategy is simply the answer to the question of how? In my view, there is not a continuum of actions where strategies exist at one end and tactics exist at the other end, where at one end responsibility and ownership lies with senior leadership and the other end, entry-level line employees. Instead, I view strategy as a nested series of how? questions and answers, from big strategies to small strategies. This is where Olga comes in.
Olga is my go-to metaphor for re-thinking the relationship between strategy and tactics. Olga is a matryoshka doll, a Russian nesting doll. Everyone has seen these dolls. Traditionally made of wood, they are brightly painted figures that separate into a top and bottom half, revealing another similar, but smaller doll. That smaller doll also separates into a top and bottom half, revealing another similar doll, and so on. The doll I use in class – Olga – breaks down into seven increasingly smaller dolls until the last one is revealed, a tiny painted doll barely an inch high.
Using Olga, the doll helps communicate three things about strategy:
The traditional model of strategy and tactics takes a “just do it” attitude towards tactics – with upper management commanding actions and establishing objectives that may or may not align with the broader, bigger objectives of the organization. The matryoshka approach to strategy forces upper management to think about how these lower level activities get done, not just that the results are accomplished. If the strategies used in the lower levels of the organization fail to fit with the Big Olga strategies of upper management, disaster can unfold. How many corporate apologies have been issued where senior executives have had to apologize for how front-line employees executed what was seen as just tactics?
Let’s return to the example above about strategies and tactics. Let’s imagine a typical scenario at an average company we’ll call Acme Industries. Top management at Acme Industries establishes an objective to improve customer satisfaction scores by 10% in the next year and creates a taskforce of employees to come up with a strategy to accomplish that goal. The taskforce fills several white boards with ideas, a list of initiatives is pulled from the ideas and typed into a Word document and sent to top management. Here is the list of initiatives the taskforce has pulled together:
First, each of these initiatives, while they might seem to be “just tactics” that folks lower down in the organization would execute, every single one of these have a how? question attached to them, which means they need a strategy. For instance, what is the strategy for how Acme can extend call center hours to 11PM on weekdays? Do Acme hire more operators? Do Acme outsource our call center function entirely or just after hours? Is an overseas call center a possibility? These are strategic questions, and they need to align with the overall strategy of the company. What if one of Acme’s Big Olga strategies is be a 100% American-owned and operated company? Does the smaller strategy of outsourcing Acme’s after-hours call center function to an overseas operation fit with that Big Olga?
What if one of Acme’s Big Olga strategies is to offer the absolute lowest prices in the category for their products? Many of these initiatives represent additional cost investments. If Acme’s Big Olga revolves around having the lowest prices, some of these initiatives might come off the board completely. For instance, knowing that the Big Olga of the organization is that Acme offers the lowest prices creates a need to keep costs low. Thus committing to a higher labor cost for a call center, or more expensive packaging, would seem to be off strategy.
One of the cautions attached to strategy models and frameworks, such as Porter’s Generic Strategies, is that strategies shouldn’t straddle boundaries, that those making those major strategic decisions need to make a choice of what to do, and not to do. My experience has been that that caution is misplaced at the top of the strategy decision chain – that companies and senior management understand the need to have a clear choice at the top-level. Often, straddling occurs further down in the organization, when the “tactics” for the big strategy start getting implemented, and alignment with the top-level strategy is either not monitored or even encouraged. Top management’s lack of involvement in these discussions is often excused with the thought that they are empowering middle and lower management to make those decisions, and since those are “just tactics”, they pose no danger to the company’s overall strategy.
But, in truth, there is not real empowerment going in that situation. Senior management is retaining the responsibility for “strategy”. If you were to ask senior management at most companies if middle and line managers were empowered to make strategic decisions for the company, they would say no. Tactics are their responsibility, not strategy.
The matryoshka approach to strategy changes that view by simply acknowledging that every decision on how to do something is a strategic decision, regardless of how high or low the action occurs in the organization. An executive vice-president’s “tactics” represent strategic decisions that a division manager or brand manager will have to make. Those strategic decisions in turn will create strategic decisions that an account manager or department manager will need to make, and on down through the organization. Framing all of these as strategic decisions that need to be aligned with the overall strategy of the organization – the Big Olga strategy – provides true empowerment and strategic discipline for everyone in the organization.
The matryoshka view of strategy also represents a hard mathematical truth – while senior management might make two or three major strategic decisions during some posh executive retreat once every couple of years, thousands of strategic decisions are being made throughout the organization every day, as managers and employees execute what are dismissed as “just tactics”. The weight and volume of those lower level strategic decisions – these little Olgas - ultimately decide whether an organization is being true to the Big Olgas outlined by senior leadership. Acknowledging and framing these decisions as strategies – not tactics – eliminates the elitist view of strategy and makes everyone a steward of the organizational strategy.
For instance, there is a tension between the expectations of strategy and the truth that the first characteristic of truly excellent strategy is simplicity. It is difficult to get paid handsomely for simplicity. It is difficult to get simplicity taken seriously. The presentation of simplicity is often anti-climactic. Many times, at the end of the strategy presentation, the reaction to simplicity by the attendees is often to mutter to each other as they leave the conference room that anyone could have done that.
The response to this by many strategists has been to create a great deal of strategical liturgy, to make the strategy they have presented to seem more mystical, more ritual, more complex and most importantly, more expensive. Colorful graphs and complex metaphors abound. Above all, the message is that the rites of strategy cannot be performed by just anyone. Not just anyone can come into the tent of strategy and emerge with the answers; thus, the strategist proves their value.
Which brings me to the task of teaching second-year undergraduate advertising majors in APR 270, our class on Strategic Thinking. Given that we require this class of all students in the major, there is a built-in assumption that anyone can think strategically. This is a little d democratic view of strategy – one that rejects the need for a priestly class of strategists, anointed to conduct the rituals of strategy. It is a view that strategic thinking can be, and should be, done by anyone and everyone.
There are a number of things that I do in the class to make this point that make strategy less elitist, but here is one controversial take that I bring to class – there is no such thing as tactics - at least from the standpoint that strategy and tactics are separate things, with strategy being higher order kinds of statements or activities than tactics.
We’ve all heard that distinction being made as critical eyes pass over a list of initiatives. “That’s just a bunch of tactics,” someone will say, “What we need is a strategy.” But for many people, students included, it’s often hard to decide where the line is between strategy and tactics. And that line is often drawn by upper management and organizational leadership, who claim ownership of the ability to discern between strategy and tactics, but sometimes don’t have any better idea of the difference than their junior staff. Thus, the line that gets drawn between strategy and tactics is drawn between “things that don’t have any specific follow up and actions” and “things that need to get done that are beneath my pay grade”.
This conflicts with the simple definition of strategy that I live by – strategy is simply the answer to the question of how? In my view, there is not a continuum of actions where strategies exist at one end and tactics exist at the other end, where at one end responsibility and ownership lies with senior leadership and the other end, entry-level line employees. Instead, I view strategy as a nested series of how? questions and answers, from big strategies to small strategies. This is where Olga comes in.
Olga is my go-to metaphor for re-thinking the relationship between strategy and tactics. Olga is a matryoshka doll, a Russian nesting doll. Everyone has seen these dolls. Traditionally made of wood, they are brightly painted figures that separate into a top and bottom half, revealing another similar, but smaller doll. That smaller doll also separates into a top and bottom half, revealing another similar doll, and so on. The doll I use in class – Olga – breaks down into seven increasingly smaller dolls until the last one is revealed, a tiny painted doll barely an inch high.
Using Olga, the doll helps communicate three things about strategy:
- That there is a series of actions, increasingly more focused, that are needed to execute a plan.
- That each of these actions, regardless of how small, involve answering the question how?
- That all the actions in a plan must fit together – that the plan does not come together unless all the strategies employed at every level of the organization fit the overall strategy set out by Big Olga – the overarching strategy.
The traditional model of strategy and tactics takes a “just do it” attitude towards tactics – with upper management commanding actions and establishing objectives that may or may not align with the broader, bigger objectives of the organization. The matryoshka approach to strategy forces upper management to think about how these lower level activities get done, not just that the results are accomplished. If the strategies used in the lower levels of the organization fail to fit with the Big Olga strategies of upper management, disaster can unfold. How many corporate apologies have been issued where senior executives have had to apologize for how front-line employees executed what was seen as just tactics?
Let’s return to the example above about strategies and tactics. Let’s imagine a typical scenario at an average company we’ll call Acme Industries. Top management at Acme Industries establishes an objective to improve customer satisfaction scores by 10% in the next year and creates a taskforce of employees to come up with a strategy to accomplish that goal. The taskforce fills several white boards with ideas, a list of initiatives is pulled from the ideas and typed into a Word document and sent to top management. Here is the list of initiatives the taskforce has pulled together:
- Better communication of customer product pick-up instructions.
- Extend call center hours to 11PM on weekdays
- Open the call center on weekends.
- Discontinue carrying items with more than a 5% return or complaint level
- Respond within 48 hours to any customer posting a 3 star or less review
- Upgrade packaging to reduce product damage during shipping
First, each of these initiatives, while they might seem to be “just tactics” that folks lower down in the organization would execute, every single one of these have a how? question attached to them, which means they need a strategy. For instance, what is the strategy for how Acme can extend call center hours to 11PM on weekdays? Do Acme hire more operators? Do Acme outsource our call center function entirely or just after hours? Is an overseas call center a possibility? These are strategic questions, and they need to align with the overall strategy of the company. What if one of Acme’s Big Olga strategies is be a 100% American-owned and operated company? Does the smaller strategy of outsourcing Acme’s after-hours call center function to an overseas operation fit with that Big Olga?
What if one of Acme’s Big Olga strategies is to offer the absolute lowest prices in the category for their products? Many of these initiatives represent additional cost investments. If Acme’s Big Olga revolves around having the lowest prices, some of these initiatives might come off the board completely. For instance, knowing that the Big Olga of the organization is that Acme offers the lowest prices creates a need to keep costs low. Thus committing to a higher labor cost for a call center, or more expensive packaging, would seem to be off strategy.
One of the cautions attached to strategy models and frameworks, such as Porter’s Generic Strategies, is that strategies shouldn’t straddle boundaries, that those making those major strategic decisions need to make a choice of what to do, and not to do. My experience has been that that caution is misplaced at the top of the strategy decision chain – that companies and senior management understand the need to have a clear choice at the top-level. Often, straddling occurs further down in the organization, when the “tactics” for the big strategy start getting implemented, and alignment with the top-level strategy is either not monitored or even encouraged. Top management’s lack of involvement in these discussions is often excused with the thought that they are empowering middle and lower management to make those decisions, and since those are “just tactics”, they pose no danger to the company’s overall strategy.
But, in truth, there is not real empowerment going in that situation. Senior management is retaining the responsibility for “strategy”. If you were to ask senior management at most companies if middle and line managers were empowered to make strategic decisions for the company, they would say no. Tactics are their responsibility, not strategy.
The matryoshka approach to strategy changes that view by simply acknowledging that every decision on how to do something is a strategic decision, regardless of how high or low the action occurs in the organization. An executive vice-president’s “tactics” represent strategic decisions that a division manager or brand manager will have to make. Those strategic decisions in turn will create strategic decisions that an account manager or department manager will need to make, and on down through the organization. Framing all of these as strategic decisions that need to be aligned with the overall strategy of the organization – the Big Olga strategy – provides true empowerment and strategic discipline for everyone in the organization.
The matryoshka view of strategy also represents a hard mathematical truth – while senior management might make two or three major strategic decisions during some posh executive retreat once every couple of years, thousands of strategic decisions are being made throughout the organization every day, as managers and employees execute what are dismissed as “just tactics”. The weight and volume of those lower level strategic decisions – these little Olgas - ultimately decide whether an organization is being true to the Big Olgas outlined by senior leadership. Acknowledging and framing these decisions as strategies – not tactics – eliminates the elitist view of strategy and makes everyone a steward of the organizational strategy.
RSS Feed