What makes a decision strategic?
What makes a decision strategic?
It’s rabbit hole time. But don’t worry, this is a good bunny, a strategic bunny. The kind we want to chase because chasing this wasscally-wabbit may just get us a little wiser.
Last week we covered what makes a strategist. In response, via comment, Paul G asked that we “drill down a bit further.” He suggested that “strategic decisions are a result of required changes within the operational environment [in order to] achieve organizational objecrtives.”
True. But we could zoom out a bit. If strategic decisions are dependent on change, then what happens when we start from zero?
For my own bias, I should point out that I come from the land of short haircuts (the military). I lean toward the more traditional meaning of “strategic,” which is a term to describe a relationship or proximity to the use of (military) force. For example, a “strategic bomber.” But we can break free of this military straitjacket, though, and find a definition of strategic that works for a wider audience.
Because there is a second meaning meant for broader audiences. Merriam-Webster also describes “strategic” as “of great importance within an integrated whole” or “to a planned effect.” Example: “the briefing emphasized strategic points.”
If strategy is an orientation towards success, then the adjective “strategic” should be used to indicate that something’s critical to success (in a particular endeavor).
A strategic decision, then, is one that’s considered crucial to success.
This simplified way of thinking about the term “strategic” can also help with classification. The military often talks in “levels”—strategic, operational, and tactical. We can bin anything crucial to the success or failure of an organization as “strategic.”
Where we really get into trouble is when people use “strategic” as a synonym for “important.” The two are not the same. Decisions can be important and not strategic. A company may bet its future on a decision to invest in a risky marketing campaign, the result of which will make or break the company. That’s strategic. In the same breath, the very same company may be deciding whether to downsize personnel 10 percent to enable that risky marketing venture, a decision I would characterize as “important,” not “strategic,” because you can envision enabling that marketing campaign with other cost-cutting measures, and the success of the organization isn’t dependent on mere cost-cutting.
Or a military unit strikes deep into enemy territory to seize a crucial, desired objective (i.e., a capital or enemy HQ). The decision to strike would itself be strategic, but the individual parts and pieces that pull together to support this decision may be interchangeable, and therefore, important. (Note: Please don’t read my use of the word “important” as a way of diminishing these decisions. These really are “important” and that’s not to belittle them because they’re not as directly tied to potential success as a strategic decision.)
In the end, I’m far less impressed by how an organization characterizes a decision. Strategic, important, operational, tactical, tomaaato, tomahto, potaaato, potahto. Whatever you want to call it.
I’m far more impressed by how decisions get weighted, discussed, and decided on. Strategy-making is about constraint and choice. Strategists should aid in these decision-making processes, no matter how pretty or ugly, and no matter what you call them.
I don't agree that the word "strategic" is the part that lets you know that the "strategic bomber" is military, unless you want to say it's so in comparison to something like "Unabomber." That said, I do agree that the word has been extensively defined and used in military writings largely to represent the top-down views of the long-term interests of the state with respect to military (and I've seen it used essentially the same without respect to the military in national decision-making writings).
In addition to my time in your land of short haircuts, I've also spent quite a bit of time in the suit and tie corporate world. According to my MBA Corporate Strategy Professor anyway, there are really only two long-term viable corporate strategies with regards to a market: compete on cost and compete on differentiation. Competing on cost being to provide the same thing cheaper than anyone else can using various tools like economy of scale, lean principles, quality management, and other cost controlling measures. Differentiation then is focusing more on tools like marketing, customer feedback, trademarks, and patents to establish consumer sentiment of that thing being worth the extra money.
I've also seen many a strategic consultant who will gladly walk you through a decision-making framework that begins with goals and objectives and break things down into ever-more discrete pieces until they become actionable with the people and resources that you have.
Then of course there's the land of board games, which is where I think the most useful thought experiments can be found simply due to the great diversity of situations where the word might be aptly applied. Take chess for example. It's generally considered a strategic game, but where is the strategy? The goal is to capture the opponent's king before they can capture yours. The resources we have are the collection of pieces of different types, with each type having its own unique set of capabilities and potential. In my view I see the strategy as a loose framework by which I decide how to open, which pieces to protect and which to sacrifice, and what parts of the board to try to control, all the while balancing that against thwarting what my opponent is trying to do. I see the decisions of exactly which piece to move and to what space on any given turn as tactical considerations dominated by checking for threats and potential threats, calculating relative trade values, and of course comparing their relative impacts to both my strategy as well as my perceptions of the opponents’ strategy.