The Return of “r” & “d”

Being able to dispose of dozens of hard copy publications about strategy is not just being “green” (although I like the double entendre of green being either wise or naive). It’s more about assuming, safely, that the web will continue to host hundreds of variations on what strategy is supposed to mean, without taking up any shelf space.

But as is so often the case, these variations most often sprout because the word/idea “strategy” is being used in so many different contexts, with a high frequency of mis-use. (For example, it’s not a plan, a technique, a best practice, or a deliverable; but all of those things may become associated with it.)

Even so, it is always used to try to indicate some level of importance or scope superseding “hands on” progress no matter how operationally excellent those hands are. In retrospect, the most obvious distinction being indicated is… research — the thing you’re supposed to do before you do something else.

With that, I’m leaving behind my dependence on the vast library of variants by starting with a couple of related and very simplifying ideas.

Idea One

The first is about (NOT “around”!!!) the motivation behind strategic work. I see only two motives: to develop a concept of what should work (development), or to develop a concept of why something did work (analysis). Ordinarily, these two continually inform each other unless you block that from happening; so doing one to the exclusion of the other is classic short-shrifting and should not be trusted.

In our business-driven or mission-driven work world, it is incredibly common to suspect strategy developers until their strategy succeeds, whereas we give strategy analysts an enormous amount of acceptance before they even start. This somewhat accounts for the industrial strength efforts to “legitimize” strategy development (to buyers, clients) with methodology taught and sold at 5 or 6 Figures a month, while on the other hand taking analytic technique as just common table stakes in much less lofty roles within an organization measurable in the 2 Figures per hour.

What does happen for analysts, however, is that the competent ones who wind up recommending something successful are promoted — at least socially — towards the rank of either “Expert” or “Creative”. In both cases, the analyst has done what every good analyst must do, which is to *discover*. However, in the former, the mentality of the promoter is practical Problem Solving (get an expert!). In the latter, the mentality is special Opportunity Exposure (get a creative!).

Idea Two

The practices regarding problems and opportunities may be different, but in both cases, a good analyst does two things. One, a good analyst is an explorer. Two, a good analyst takes things apart, to validate what the “actual” (effective) parts (elements) are. And again, doing one without the other is not trustworthy.

What does that have to do with strategy?

Strategy analysis earns having its own name by doing one thing. It articulates what kind of value a decision actually has in the context of other decisions, while it explains an alignment, to each other, of the different kinds of values that multiple decisions create.

That sounds a lot like both art and science, which is absolutely not a coincidence (as any good artist or scientist would tell you). The good strategy Analyst clearly has the chops to reveal something that was beforehand not recognized, or not understood, or not believed.

Great strategy analysts have low bias, 20/20 vision 24x7, and are strong abstract thinkers. They also know that strategy analysis does not “cause” anything to happen other than to influence decisions.

But what about strategy development?

Analysis in effect generates clarity (not truth) about (not “around” !!!) what is available to use, and often as well how it might be used, in creating something that wasn’t already in place. This instantly makes it obvious that strategy analysis is fundamental to successfully prosecuting intentional change in a prevailing context. (Meanwhile, good analysis is NOT management; but good management MUST include analysis.)

Development (done competently) always takes a proposition of a type of value to be had with a certain outcome, and it manages the creation of that outcome from intentional uses of resources and conditions.

Roll the Credits

The target outcome of strategy development is always the same: the definition of a position of leverage for influencing realization of a desired benefit. If strategy development does not accomplish that, it is either not actually being done, or it is being done badly. It is, furthermore, not responsible for accomplishing anything beyond that. When a good strategy exists but then is not used, that does NOT amount to the strategy not being a good strategy. Strategy is a theory looking for a proof, and development organizes a rational relationship between the theory and the actual opportunity to prove it.

For those of us whose careers have consisted mainly of being hired or dumped primarily as strategists, there is often an embarrassingly large inventory of stuff we produced that never got used. Often it didn’t get used because when we did it our job titles did not say “strategist” and it perished in the ecosystem of the moment. Some of us hold on to that stuff anyway like souvenirs or stockpiles of ammunition; others completely ignore old stuff and have only a forward-facing attention span; every time we get on the ball court, we start with zero points and want to score 30, so every effort is a re-invention or re-iteration, not an off-the-shelf sale.

This closing thought is not so much a conclusion as an observation. We get on the court because we already know how to reinvent or reiterate, not because we already have the 30 points in our pocket. Strategists are the ultimate knowledge workers. That said, there are terrible strategists and awesome strategists. But we also operate in a time when, as carved right on the stone tablets, the main belief is that “change is the norm, not the exception”. Given that, there is virtually no daylight between strategy and change management; trying to do one without the other is not to be trusted. Organizations that explicitly recognize that connection and protect it are already better built for change.

© 2022 malcolm ryder / Archestra Research & ChangeBridge LLC