Harvard Business Publishing

I partly agree with you in your definition of strategy. I completely agree that word strategy is naively added to any organization function and most often is confused with operational tactics.

Being a manager myself, I see strategy built on top of organization value and ethics, the primary purpose of which is to cause a differentiation.

I do agree that mission is about "what" and strategy is about "why" but I think value is more about "why" rather than "whom". I guess vision is more closely related to mission except that it does not have any numbers associated with it.

Strategy precedes "web of relatioships" or "whom" as it causes them to exist rather then exist by it.

First, the mission has to include all in the organization. If only a few people are taken into confidence and the rest are ignored or taken for granted, the mission is bound to fail.

Next, the mission has to be tangible and convincing; it shouldn't be speculative.

Third, the mission shouldn't be too self-centered or prompted by greed. Space for others is a must for win-win situation.

If all this is in order, strategy will fall into its place.

What would you say as to the importance of a strategic exit plan as well as a strategic business plan?

Would you inform me what measurement I should use to measure whether formulation strategy is connected or disconnected with the execution strategy in an organization?
I need it to write a thesis.
Thank you for your attention,I am looking forward to receiving your advice.

Best regard
Heriyanto
Jakarta Indonesia

I agree with the construct as a starting point. The problem as I see it is that over a period of time, many of these have become buzzwords instead of being the roadmap that you have suggested. A vision, instead of being "why" is often the dream of an individual - rarely is it articulated in a manner as to ignite the minds of all stakeholders. Similarly, mission the "what" is easy to formulate - benchmark with the best and quantify KRAs for your organization. Radical innovations, much as the proponents of concepts like BPR would like to drive home, are the exception rather than the rule. Incremental improvements are probably more practical and achieve more significant results in the long run. Also, the mission needs to be a passion - here again, communication holds the key. As for the value network, co-creating value is fine in principle; how many managers have the courage of conviction to translate this into action with suppliers, customers and other stakeholders? While win-win is an excellent ideal, win-lose is what is followed by a significant percentage of managers. The key to value co-creation is trust that alas, is conspicuous by its absence in most situations. Finally, strategy is easy to formulate but difficult to execute. Execution is more often than not a shift in mind-set, the ability to look at anything from a fresh perspective, an attitudinal dimension. As anyone who deals with people would perhaps agree, attitudinal changes are the most difficult to accomplish and hence poor execution is the result.

My perspective is that mission and vision form the core of the business model upon which the "what" or strategy development is to be based for differentiation from competitors.

I agree with your definition of strategy and am pleased that you've noted the misconceptions that many have in clarifying the differences between mission, vision and strategy.

To take that further, I often see multiple and differing definitions of tactics and goals as well. This makes the process of Strategic Planning difficult. With many of my executive team and board clients they erroneously focus on tactics and goals and call it "strategy."

Regarding the need for clarification of mission, I find that it is ideal, however most organizations pay little attention to it. Even with the lack of "buy-in" or value in the mission one can develop solid Strategic direction. The elements that must be present, however are clarity of Vision and the Values of the organization.

Barbara Belk, Ph.D.
Corporate Psychologist

What I would add to Michael Watkins piece here (I like his work very much) is that the relationship between strategy and strategy execution is rarely additive or multiplicative in nature. It is from my client experience and academic research a "gordian knot" of trade offs.

In my opinion the best piece still on what a strategy is is Michael Porter's 1996 HBR article "What Is Strategy". There, strategy is an explicit choice over other choices of where to compete on the "productivity frontier" of the firm's industry or environmental domain (ED). The productivity frontier represents the best the industry (ED) can be at a particular time with respect to Value and Cost. In Porter's model Price floats to what the market will bring given the clarity and brilliance of the current offering. The particular choice around pure Customer Value and Relative Cost Position is a keen choice executives and middle management "opinion leaders" (my phrase) in the firm must make. The chosen strategic position is made operational by linked superior activities. It is the linkage that makes copying in the short to mid term hard for competitors trying to invade that position on the productivity frontier.

From my work in strategy execution, the essence is to prioritize, align, link and synchronize (PALS) all executive, operating and support processes with the natural pace of the market - something I define as Market Rhythm. This synching process can only be done from my experience by identifying and removing four kinds of key barriers (what academics call inertia).

Here is the rub: it is almost always career limiting for incumbent executives and key middle managers to do this inside of their firms.

So the relationship between strategy and strategy execution seems to be embracing and honoring natural enemies. The ability to challenge seemingly natural enemies and to forge synthesis that may not be a maximum or an optimum but a term we might venture a "realimum" seems to be the order of the day.

Lest the reader think I am copping out and suggesting Blue Ocean strategy and the like are not possible I am not. "Realimums", properly architected, create what I refer to as "success and confidence platforms in the midst of natural enemies" for later cycles of strategy formulation and execution where increasingly bolder initiatives can be taken on.

I work in non-profit without formal management background.

I agree with that strategies are the "how;" however, don't think the other elements can so neatly be labelled the 3 Ws.

From what I have seen, "vision" is more what the organization hopes to become (e.g., the children's hospital of choice west of the Mississippi) while "mission" is its purpose or how it will reach its vision (e.g., providing outstanding healthcare to children from 0 to 18 irrespective of ability to pay).

Then, I agree that strategies are the how (e.g., become specialist in pediatric cancers), and objectives are the details (e.g., recruit 2 nationally recognized pediatric oncologists).

Am I too far off the mark?

Virginia

I really like your explanation of a strategy providing a good roadmap. From a very practical business perspective (my professional career has taken me to over twenty different countries) I sometimes wonder why we spend so much valuable executive time debating and differentiating between mission, vision, objectives, strategies, etc. Seems to me that there are many instances when a focus on simply clarifying our future directions and agreeing our road map/action plan is quite adequate.

Best wishes from Australia.

Les Pickett Pacific Rim Consulting Group

I am the president of a software firm that specializes in global fleet risk management solutions. I have also worked in brand management at P&G.

I agree that for many people strategy is confusing. My view is strategy is synonymous with what you want to accomplish (i.e. position in the market), and the tactics detail how. Despite this discrepancy, I concur with the author that the end result of a strategy statement is to profoundly affect the way people make decisions in their day-to-day activities. The focus placed on 'consistency of purpose' might be the single most important benefit of a strategy.

Definition has been made simple by the writer for an understanding of the concept Strategy at all levels in the organization. However, I wish to submit that the word strategy alone will not suffice. We need to add a word conscious to make a phrase "Conscious Strategy”. Impulsive actions and reactions can be described as a strategy pursued during the course of achieving a mission/goal in hand. But this may not be a desirable route atlease in business arena. May sound OK in any military battle or venture. The grand strategy actually is assisted by the actions and reactions on the ground and mostly they are impulsive for various reasons. That is the area where the focus is required to make it a conscious selection of strategy. The onuses on word conscious will assist a person at any level to discern a well thought out a strategy with impulsive ventures.

Farooq Ahmed
Director Marketing
September 26,2007

I first reaction to the word "Strategy" would be 'a what if' scenario, as most strategic intents are most often than not distant to the aspirations and operational drive that would create that buy-in from the direct operatives of the game plan.

Enveloping the knowing and doing gap has always constituted a bottle neck for most organization in delivery value, as the crtical mass within the organization gets bored with strategic documents that are not finely linked to the mission and tactical flow of the operational team.

In any case, crafting a robust strategy goes a long way in defining the business case, which ultimatly drives the value chain.

I quite agree with your layout of the mission, vision, value and strategy relationship, and also what Barbara Belk wrote about the need to have clarity of vision before there can be any meaningful strategy.

Human awareness is said to be defined by:

1. Knowledge, which answers to the question what?
2. Understanding, which answers to the question why? and
3. Wisdom, which answers to the question how?

In the context of organizational systems, it should be clearly stated as you have explained that mission answers only to what, while vision answers to where, and not why, as you have alluded.

This is because mission and vision are often confused by a number of organizations, and in the traditional bid for having both statements, the mission is clearly stated but the vision often ends up nebulous. The simple explanation for this is that while most organizations know 'what' (mission) they want to provide, they more often than not have no clear idea of 'where' or 'who' (vision) they want to be in the apparent life of the business.

Every organization must have a face, an identity with which they are known, the one thing that sets them apart from other organizations. This could be the way they do business, their internal government, or the way they relate with the market. Whatever it is, it's called the organizational culture and core values... this is what drives their pursuit for achieving a clearly defined vision.

The value network no doubt defines the with whom and for whom aspect of the business, but the why and the how in this context are entrenched in the strategy. Heriyanto, I hope this helps you:

The reason why strategies fail in a number of organizations is because strategy is usually not treated as a two-pronged tool that it is. Organizations must understand that strategy formulation cannot sustain a business if strategy execution is not incorporated.

Question: 'Why' is this the strategy FORMULATED for this business?
Answer: Because having considered the value network, mission and vision, this is what best serves our purpose.

Question: 'How' do we EXECUTE the formulated strategy?
Answer: Follow the guidelines provided.

Now, that's strategy answering to both why and how, because in business, strategy is both the understanding and the wisdom.

'Demola Ogunbanjo
Energy Investments Manager.

Strategy was described to me as being like Dorothy's "Yellow Brick Road" in the Wizard of Oz. I personally think this is a great annalogy which also helps clarify what a Vision (There's no place like home)and Mission (to get home by finding the Wizard of Oz) are.
Cheers

In terms of framing Strategy as "How" - then why not. In terms of framing strategy as "how resources should be allocated to acheive the mission" this is indeed a powerful context. I have been using the metaphor of "resource management" to frame many new business (sales and marketing) issues for many year and find is quite useful. Concepts such as supply (company side), demand (from the market), balancing (never possible completely), competency and capability management, value networks, communities of practice - these are all powerful constructs under the heading of "resource allocation" (or strategy!)

I do agree with mukul Gupta value is more about Why. Mision is about what " a declaration of an organization reason for being and whom it wants to serve.

Can you please advise me on Divestiture strategy I want to formulate a strategy on all public Enterprise that are not functioning.

Thanks.

Ah, good old Kipling and four of his six serving men!

But why have you not considered "Where" and "When" in this globalised business environment. Businesses need to address the issue of where in the world to conduct their activities - whether to go for cheap but unskilled labour, or to operate in the more regulated environment of the First World.

And time is doubly important both in terms of taking advantage of short-term niche products and deciding whether 24-hour operations matter to the business or not!

Your aricle does make some clear distinctions.

However, a vision is about where an organisation would like to be. it's about the future....an ambition demystified by its SMART goals.

Your strategy is definetly about the how to achieve your mission and vision, but with an understanding of where you currently are, your strengths and weaknesses.

In many organisations I believe, employees rarely understand how their actions relate to or affect the bottom line.

Dear Sirs,

well,unfortunately, I have to support your view that far to many "leaders" do confuse certain relationships between cause and effect.
I my career I often came across managers who confused budgeting with strategy, stipulating the increases in turn-over and cost cutting as the stragic way to sustainable EBIT levels.

My learnings are: do comprehend your business in its mechanics, i.e. follow a line of thought:

1. define your business area
2. define your business model
2.1. define your target market
2.2. define your value proposition
2.3. define your positioning
3. define your business processes accordingly
4. define your resources for these processes
5. define your strategy ( describing the necessary steps
to get from here to a set goal -
leads and lags/ map your strategy)
6. do the budgeting
7. do the necessary iterations in order to meet limits
and restrictions
Yes, mission and vision is about leadership or at most refers to steps 1 and 2.
Or,in case you will have to change your business model,you will have to devise a strategy as on how to get there.

kind regards
Hans Rolf Niehues

I think business strategy is about how to grow your business, using other people's money, and making consistent profits, based on selling to the customer what they want at affordable prices.

Strategy must be revised regularly to stay compatible & relevant to market needs and social environment.

The greatest strategy, I think, is having the ability to see and know the future.

More grist for the mill:

Strategy: The preparations leaders make before a battle (battle = initiative).

Vision: The desired outcome of the battle.

Tactics: The actions troops take during the battle.

Per Michael Porter and C.K. Prahalad, I find it helpful to think of stategy as a set of actions (not just plans) to set a whole organization apart from others in a significant, new way. Actions and decisions that lead to incremental improvements (e.g., increasing share in a served market) are tactics, not strategy.

Strategy, and other business terms such positioning and "guerrilla marketing", are borrowed from the military.

As such, there is a simple definition that we like to use that is borrowed from the military application of the term, strategy:

Strategy is discovering a unique place where your company competes. It defines where your market is, who your customers are, and what you want that position in the market to be.

Analogous to positions on the battlefield, strategic decisions to occupy new positions are in support of the overall goal. A CEO must define what those goals are - it is up to the leadership in the organization to define how you will do it - hence, the strategy.

I appreciate the specific reference about "who". The common experience many of us have had at falling short of implementing a strategy or significant change almost always has a significant stakeholder involved who was not properly consdered within the planning piece.

Strategy affects the "fabric" of the environment within which we operate, this means we are changing our relationships with others, and their perception of the change is important to successful implementation.

Cheers
Mark

It would be helpful to include analyzing core competencies and critical success factors to support the goals of the strategy and ultimately the serve the mission and vision.

A template to make clear the distinctions and guide the process could be:

Mission Statement: We are in the business of ...
Vision: In 5 years, we'll be #1 ...
Strategy: Differentiation, Cost Leadership, Customer-supplier links, Service, Value Chain, etc
Goals: Grow revenue by 25%, Reduce Operational Costs, etc
Skills & Resources Required: Marketing, Research, Engineering, Capital Investment, etc
Organizational Requirements: Incentives, Cost Control, Service Culture, Process Re-engineering, etc
Risks: Competitors, Technology Changes, Changing Standards, High Cost, Resistance to Change, etc
Core Competencies: Assets, Cognitive Capabilities, Processes and Routines, Organization Structure, Behavior and Culture, etc
Critical Success Factors: Industry-based, Environmental, Temporal, Managerial, World view, etc

Defining CSFs can be challenging. Here are a few resources:

http://www.e-competitors.com/Strategy/SBUPlanning/SBUPositioning/SBU_Critical.htm
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_80.htm

The model is good. But the salient point missed out by the CEO when they formulate the Strategy is a) they think the employees do not understand strategy which is a fallacy b) strategies fail because when CEOs implment a strategy they only look at sales /revenue figures c) Strategy can only be executed if one has nimble operations (which is seldom found) d) Strategy and operations go hand in hand, people at the top have to work with people at the ground level executing the strategy.

Formualting strategy is not difficult one gleans throughs numbers, org sturcture, culture etc, but time and again - there is no proper mechanism from the top to ensure that strat is executed.

Thank you for an interesting article.
I see some elements differently, but that may be more to do with my chosen involement with smaller businesses (I did the big corporate scene for too many years!).
Vision: The kind of world we'd like to see. If you like, the fundamental reason for the business existing.
Mission: what the business will become, to play its part in that world.
Policy/Policies: the boundaries within which the business operates - boundaries can and should be moved, but only as a considered decision. Policies should include accountability mapping.
Strategy: the boundaries within which the management manage resources, to deliver measurable results.
Working with owner/managers, I usually start by pointing out that most plan nothing and regularly achieve it. I then explain that this is a failure of strategy - they are not allocating resources properly & they are the primary resource! Most owner/managers intuitively think strategically, but generally their advisers are unable to help them create the framework (Vision-Mission-Policies) that demystifies the requirement.

In my opinion 'strategy' needs to be a part of Strategic Management which covers aspects such as Business definition(what of the business), Mission (why of the business), Objectives (long term) and Goals (short term) which quantify both the what and why of the business and next comes Strategy i.e. how to achieve these. To that extent I fully agree with the author. However keeping in mind the origin of the word strategy as in war, intentions and plans of the enemy(in war) and of the competitors(in business) too need to be taken into consideration before evolving a suitable strategy. Strategy is both intended and emergent as given in Mintzberg's concept.Emergent strategy may be the result of what actually happens in reality or on ground as in war which not always will tally with what was intended. As such I like a dynamic concept of strategy more than a model based static one. If Clausewitz's original concept of strategy is put into proper perspective of business definition than it would mean overcoming the opponents by skillful deployment i.e. use of all the resources at the disposal of a company which readily agrees with Porter's and Pralhad's concepts of strategies in terms of Competitive advantage and core competencies.--- Mohan Kotwal

The people who know "Why" will always need the experience, knowledge, and skills of those who know "How". We must trust in those who know "How" within our organizations. Title does not automatically mean we should have all the answers.

After reading this article it becomes clear that in order for a business to bring all aspects into alignment (Mission,Vision,and Core Values), there must be the final and most important piece; the "How". Based on my experience organizations today do not have a lack of direction as much as they lack the vehicle to get them where it is they need, and or, want to be.

Regards,
Joe Verderaime

In my opinion strategy is the set of management actions required to achieve the goals driven by vision of the organization. Strategy is about deciding what are the arenas for our business. How should we run our business in these arenas, whether its through acquisition or self growth. How could we differentiate our business from our competitors and finally how these actions are going to benefit business. Once we have determined this then the top management needs to communicate this to all the employees.

Having gone through what you have described as the stratrgy for an organisation or business I cannot but agree with you. The general tendency is that we confuse strategies of a biusines with the mission and goal of a business, but with a clear cut out road map detailing on the itenaries which should be put in place before an organisation can achieve its goal one cannot miss out in getting to the promise of a vision realised for a business.

Continuing with the usage of the military parlance, I guess strategy would relate to action/decision taken keeping the long-term vision in mind. (Opposed to this is "tactical" - which relates to short-term vision.)

Organizations that have clearly explained their long-term vision across their hierarchy would tend to have employees taking the right 'strategic decisions'.

In a sense, this seems to indicate a need to de-mystify any ambiguity in mission/vision aspects (and cut out all jargon) to de-mystify strategy !

Clear model and good discussion!

Let me echo that strategy should guide both long term and tactical decision on how we beat the competition. Even non-profits have competition. In my experiences, companies have to change their strategic directions often because today's global markets reward the fast followers. The problem is in the execution! Companies need to change to take advantage of technology disruption, market shifts, crisis, etc. So how do we communicate to the entire organization the new strategy and why we need to change (once again)?

So it comes back to execution and how to communicate change within the enterprise. It also means that all employees need to understand their business, their customers, how their company competes in the market, and how they make profits!

Here is a flow that I learned to keep all these terms and concepts straight. (History buffs may quibble with the details but you'll get the point.)

Vision - Rule Greece
Mission - Take Troy
Objective - Conquer the Trojan Army
Strategy - Use the Trojan Horse
Goal - Get the Trojans to accept the horse and bring it inside.
Tactics - Build the horse, train the men, etc.

Thoughts?

It's a good idea that begins addressing buzz words. "Strategy" is right there. Ten years ago, just graduating, I had career advisors telling me to include the word on my resume whenever possible. They said using the word more often than was right had gotten new law graduates jobs. That's when I knew I'd be reading something like this some day, as part of a words gone wild article by a clever industry watcher.

That day has come, which makes me wonder what the next set of key concepts will be that lead to massive rewards for those who master the concepts behind the new meta language, or "biz talk".

You've made good points about the methods used and choices every business must make to capture either goodwill or profits (at some point) from their customers and other "partners". It proves that you can't go wrong asking the journalist's classic questions, "who, what, why and how". I wonder if there is a good reason to sidestep the "whens" and "wheres". The reply that was very concerned with these additional elements seemed on the mark (for example, the "whens": speed to market, first movers, etc; and the "where" issues raise interesting questions in an age when doctors treat people in other countries over virtual private networks and airline FF miles are inherited, bartered and hotly contested in divorce).

Nevertheless, what I'm left thinking is this-- this morning I read that on average, C level managers in public companies are making 400% more than line workers. The editorial stated that ten years ago it was just 100%. The writer thought it was a sign of the times, as Senators move to change tax treatment of stock options, thinking the public is ready to support such a move to alter incentive loopholes (he cited darling Apple, which deducted over 1 billion for over 200 million in options granted to key employees).

But I wonder how much of this change (from 100 to 400%) had to do with "strategy", and the effective mastery of the elements thereof by our nation's business leaders; and how much had to do with demographics, effective employee bargaining (stock options), dumb luck and the odd turn of events that made 24 year olds billionares, employees of private armies wealthy, and oil more than $80 dollars. How many newly stamped MBAs flocking to hedge funds and private equity shops will think about the mechanics of strategy in their analysis when they try to calculate Goldman's earnings by 10am, or whether to short the dollar.

Then again, if this were another age, maybe I'd be wondering how many angels dance on the head of a pin...

I partially agree, except fot the following details.

1. Mission = purpose of the organization as a value-to-society based defining/binding/boundary/declaring statement, used to select organizational system's focus (value creating critical processes), structure and performance success indicators.

2. Vision = Desired future state, mainly (unless the vision implies changing the nature of the organization in itself) a much higher effectiveness in the generation of value than it is today (ever maximizing the value/cost quotient) , as measured by the selected indicators.

3. Strategies are then the decided upon paths/areas/enablers/behaviors to focus/create/adapt/enhance/reduce/abandon in order to reach the vision.

Thanks to all for your thoughts,
Eduardo M. Arroyo

This article is quite convincing. The vocabularies Vision, Mission and strategies have undergone changes in its meaning and interpretations over a period of last ten years.

Initially Vision was crafted and drafted by companies as something which is quantified and clearly measurable. Mission was more of the behavioural code of the team to achieve the oraganisational vision.

The key is, every leader has to see that his team is better than his competetors in creating value to the custmers and also that value is created at a lesser cost than that of their competitor.

Strategy is the choice of the manager.

I agree with the definitions of Mission, values, and Strategy but for vision is more Where than the why.

Mission, Vision and values are the guidelines for actions and decision- making (strategy). These give to the organization enough space for creativity and action.

The main goal is to understand the relationship between each one of the elements and make this knowledge part of the work environment thoughout the organization

A form to simplify the strategy is
first to ask:
Why do we want a Strategy?

From start of my career in Fortune 500 companies the word "strategy" has been abused, confused and used to mislabel talented individuals.

One great definition I heard of strategy is, "What you are going to do to win." For example, has anyone bothered to ask Bill Gates about his original strategy for Microsoft? or Warren Buffet? If a business wins, is sustainable overtime and makes a lot of money we say, that company has a great strategy. And therefore, the founder, CEOs, etc. are are then labeled "great strategist".

However, I would like to put forth that strategy and business success falls into the case of which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Thanks for allowing a platform to share,
Miss Phyllis Wallace
Human Resources Leader

Many managers love to get wrapped up in academic discussions about strategic vision, mission statements, and the like. Remember, when your strategy is crafted, people actually have to be able to translate it into what they do every day.

I believe strategy must be boiled down to the following elements:
1. Which customers do you wish to serve?
2. What must you do by when in order to serve them better or differently than anyone else?
3. How are you going to do those things?

I agree with the article.
Almost everybody mix the concept of strategy with something immportant (mission, visions, goals, be the best...), and thats an error.
Strategy is the "how", but in a flexible and sustainable way. Its about uniques "activities and resources" of the firm.
For me its first than others factors like "whom".
The strategy leads the creation of working teams.

Sir:
Demystifying Strategy: The What, Who, How, and Why
In the time of uncertainties as it is now when the global economy depending on practically TV, the braking news, and the strikes by the writers in the Hollywood for better pay I think we need to look behind the stage for any Strategy. There are no What, Who, How, and Why or the Six Sigma or the SWO or the three Rs. Everything is changing so fast that he gone are the days of Stephen Covey preaching the good housekeeping and to be more religious and gone are the days of Enthusiasm makes the difference. The reality is , you need strength solid endurance to take the task s they come , diagnose this, act on this , net work, ask stupid question, come to some sort of conclusion , refer the www and rephrase the whole thing in the Power point format and sell this. It does not need brains. Heard of the property tycoon who states he would rather have streetwise he the books wise. I am in the book wise and I am still looking for a job at 63.
Does that sound crazy? No. The age requested today is between the 16 and 30. Others are right off. We just do not want the experience. We want to sell the goods, foods, toys fast. If there is a small competition, I will scream, “More lead? Here is the lead detector from China to measure the lead in the toys from China”. Cheap too.
Is that what you want?
Sir. The long gone phrase, “if you cannot sell anything in New York, you do not have anything” is right Strategy, wisdom and cash in the pocket. I do not want to know what, who, why, when where. I just need cash.

I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa

I agree 100% with Michael Watkins' observation that many business leaders struggle with strategy.

My view on why CEOs and business leaders have difficulty with strategy is because they don’t have a clear understanding of what businesses they are in. They typically confuse their organizational charts with strategic business units; and then they fall into the departmental-planning trap.

The solution is for CEOs to appreciate the differences between:
1. Corporate Strategy
2. Group Strategy
3. Business Unit Strategy
4. Cost Center Planning.

Once the above is understood, CEOs should focus on the vision thing and selecting the optimal mix of businesses to attain the vision.

Most everyone else should be aligned with the business units and their respective strategies.

Since Michael E. Porter wrote “Competitive Advantage” in 1985, understanding the “What, Who, How, and Why” should be crystal clear to everyone.

Since about 1990, I’ve been mystified on why strategy is not clear to most business leaders; and I wonder when Porter-trained MBAs will reach the tipping point.

The word Strategy is now becoming a household name especially among the so called mega / International organizations. Hence your definition is good enough to give every senior management or CEO an idea / directions of where to lead the organizations to. But it seems the individual ideas and approach makes up the success and failure of most organizations.
To me, i believe average senior managers knows the importance of and different strategies needs of an organization but two of the many factors may not allow sound implementation of strategies for the growth of the company - individual idealistic approach of the strategy and secondly, the interest of the stakeholders, where there is divergent opinions because of their interest, then, there may some shift in the original strategy.
Hopefully, with seminars and conferences from people like you, it will go a long way to change some of the CEO's mindset.
Thanks for the opportunity given to comment on your work. God Bless.

I agree with Micheal about the defination of the strategy and the alignment between strategy and the decision making process,the problem is that the strategy from my experience is the document that is forgeteen before the ink is dry,We have started strateginc planning three years ago in the in my company which is in Africa, the problem is that all manager become operationally focus and the bigger picture get lost.... we have tried to get back the focus by business planning review but by that time it is too late....

Mohamed Faris- Khartoum

According to Mr. Watkins "Mission is what the organization’s leaders want it to accomplish; missions get elaborated into specific goals [which are not strategies]".

On the contrary according to Mr. Watkins strategy "is about how resources should be allocated to accomplish the mission in the context of the value network".
Now, how resources will be allocated obviously will be defined by a set of goals ("priorities") that will be prescribed by strategy.

Thus both mission and strategy are elaborated through goals.

Perhaps then Mr. Watkins should clarify better how "mission goals" distinguish from "strategy goals" in his viewpoint.
E.g. "Be market share leader in every market we enter". Is such a statement a "mission goal" or a "strategy goal"? Obviously being market share leader may be something the leaders want to accomplish. (Think of GE, “Being number one in every business we enter”). Thus it fits Mr. Watkins --very broad-- definition of a mission goal.
In the same time, being market share leader may be a mechanism to reap regional advantages of scale that may exist in the industry (Think of SouthWest Airlines). Therefore the goal "Be market share leader in every market we enter" may be considered as a strategy as well.

Could Mr Watkins make a more clear distinction between mission goals and strategy goals in his viewpoint, to facilitate further discussion?

Strategy is a set of high level statements or strategic themes which precipitate during a two/three day brainstorming workshop of top management (using as a catalyst a previously prepared and circulated number of analyses(PEST, SWOT etc) and various sector and other relevant data and statistics) in order to specify the best direction which the company should follow in order to achieve its Vision.

And because 'Strategy Is All About Doing' every strategic theme should then yield a number of objectives, measures, targets and the necessary initiatives(actions,projects) to achieve the objectives. Achieving the objectives satisfies the strategic themes (in other words the strategy,)brings about the required results and therefore materialises the vision. And this is how the high level statements formulating the strategy are translated into measurable actions which precipitate the results that get you where your vision wished.

I believe that one of the best methods to translate strategy into actions, which is where most companies fail, is the Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Maps as put forward by Kaplan and Norton in a series of well written books.

Quite a lot of insight is provided by your article. However , I think Vision , and mission are too closely related to be
de-coupled. I see Vision as where I want to be which is separated from me right now by time. Mission is the journey to the vision that is surported by a Strategy, and strategy has its building blocks in all that is considered in formulating it.

In simple terms, a good strategy is a dynamic plan of action taking the organization to the winning post pipping others. It encompasses all the matrices of the organisation effectively.

Organisations with sound strategy also fail because they may not be dynamic. Dynamic one systematically takes into account evolving competitive pressures, reorients to the external factors(like currency appreciation),constantly updating economic intelligence, checking others on track (like thru inorganic growth)etc.

It should cover all like pricing, marketing, branding, production, finance, HR etc.

A successful CEO is invariably an excellent strategist and a ruthless executor.

Strategy is generic and can meant any tool, from Common Sense to Act of God. It is also not incorrect to proclaim that Strategy got several tiers or levels too.

It is stupid to use the same strategy twice on the same field; but is Changing the Goal Posts recognised as a Business and Military Startegy ? For some had stike it big using it. ie. Warlord, Insurance Company and Banker.

In China, Japan and Asian Countries, Sun Tse Art of Wars is very popular among the Politician and Businessman, leading to red oceans and dead seas and deserts and tundras. Maybe 3% triumphed highly, 17% floating with life-jackets and the rest clinging to life-bouys.

For Sun Tse was eventually killed in one of his many senseless ego-boosting battles and the State of Wu defeated by The Allies. This can proof that Cold-Blooded Strategy will only gain temporary victory and when once defeated will be permanently wiped out.

Thus I should say that " the mother of all strategy is the ability to influence your employee, staff and soldier to even die for your cause...becoz your cause is also their Grand Goal "

In Romance of The 3-Kingdom, Cao Cao is the Great Master-mind and Employer / User of Great Soldiers, Great Thinkers and Pretty Woman, his sub-ordinates and even foes highly admire his Innovative-Strategies.

In one scene when there is food shortage in his Army Camp, he summon in The Cook and begged to " borrow his head " to appease the mutinuous troop.

In another scene when corner by General Kuan Ti, he and his troops kow-towed for mercy...for with the forest intact, no need to fear for no fire-wood. Saddam Hussein may have used same ruse and withdrew from Kuwait in 1990.

For not listening to his Advisor by sparing the live of a double-agent ( let the Tiger back into the jungle ) and adamantly refusing to surrender to King Sun Chuan, General Kuan Ti lost his head.

And for refusing to heed to Advisor Chu Kuok Liang's advice, King Lui Pei, out of brotherhood emotion and blinded by the rage of vengeance, and his badly prepared army was vanquished by King Sun Chuan.

The Hongkies love to convert ancient military strategies into modern business strategies and thus create very dramatic scenarios.

But if one probe deeper into most Grand Business Strategies, they are also similar clones too; raiding and bulldozing into each other's territories which only the strongest, fierciest and ruthless conqueror taking almost all. Some call it the TWO HORSE RACE, but to me it appeared more like TWO LION'S GLORY...with the Hyenaes trailing behind.

To conclude, I think all Man and all his strategies aimed to seek the accomplishment this 3-Main Goals :

( 1 ) Power

( 2 ) Wealth

( 3 ) Woman

and after attaining full success, He shall retire.

I am not successfull in my Goals becoz, I saw beyond them by reading the Histories of Gautama Buddha, Napoleon Bonaparte and Alexander the Great.

For all the destruction one done to This World for his Personal Egoistic Glory will eventually be lost to another Same Man.

Confucius died a poor man but his fame, human dignity and praise is World-wide and evergreen.

I totally agree to this definition, because i beleive that until and unless, one will not dream of the vision and mission, it becomes difficult.
and i believe that it also depends on the target of Individual:
It could be primary target or secondary target.
Strategy also depends on the circumstances and situations.

Regards,
Bhawana Shara
Business Manager

Perhaps there is something not very right with our current Business School Strategies, becoz we are having repeated Worldwide Economic Downturns almost every 10-years.

Is it that our Strategies are programmed for this type of Corrections ?

Is it that with the departure of the Veteran Strategy Tacticians, the next generation are lost or their new strategies failed ?

Or is the repeated down turns part of A Strategy, known in China as the " self-inflicted injury ruse ? " made to trap and damage your enemy's economy, sort of economic sanction, where the smaller countries will have to kow-tow to the G-10 Super-Power again and again, thus forever locked in economic bondage ?

Whatever it may be, I think its about time we discontinue with this lost-lost game and implement grander strategies to quantum leap our economy to a higher plane every 10-year instead.

In this way our world will be full of rich and richer countries; with the richest people ever known.

It has been my experience that despite the constant insistence that strategy drives business actions and ultimately growth, it is ultimately growth that drives strategy. Business will change what they do and how they do it to follow lucrative trends and industries.

They pursue these bubbles, with no long term growth strategy, until there is no more room for growth and the bubble pops. The over valued economy comes back down to earth.

This constant cycle of economic down turns will not change until a holistic, long term strategy approach that incorporates value at all levels of society is used in corporate culture.