A friend recently said that if strategy were a fictional character, it would be Severus Snape. My friend argued that, like Snape, strategy is misunderstood and nobody is sure whether it's a hero or villain. I don’t know if I agree, but there’s something to it. 

Over the years, I’ve witnessed many misunderstandings and misuses of strategy. An experienced CMO once googled “how to write a marketing strategy” in front of me. A smart colleague declared he hates strategy because it doesn’t achieve anything. I’ve seen several business strategies with little more than lofty goals and shopping lists of initiatives (why do something when we can do everything!). Then there are the cut-and-paste strategic frameworks and using the word strategy to infer that this isn’t to be questioned (I’m sorry, this is a strategic decision).

In the world of marketing and communications, the general sentiment is that strategy has become harder to sell. I recently asked a CMO of a mid-sized business what they want to see from their agencies. The CMO said they wanted their agencies to spend less time on strategy and more time doing the work. He believes that agencies sell strategy to inflate costs but doesn’t see value from it. Meanwhile agencies wish they could spend more time on strategy as it’s more likely to increase the effectiveness of communications and deliver a stronger return on investment for the client. 

These conversations are anecdotal, but I find it strange to think that the great military or sporting strategists have the same problems as the business community. I don’t think anyone has ever argued the strategy for beating a particular team is to score more points than them. Meanwhile, I have heard a business leader say their strategy for becoming a market leader is to sell more products than their competitors (It’s as simple as that, he said).

I wonder whether there’s a link between bad strategy and declining trust in the value of strategy. If I had only experienced bad strategy, then you can’t blame me for thinking strategy sucks. This view is reinforced by thought leadership framing traditional strategy as long-term, goal-oriented, and linear, which is useless when faced with rapidly evolving market conditions. The thing is, there’s no such things as traditional strategy, just good and bad strategy.

I like Richard Rumelt’s description of bad strategy in his book Good Strategy Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters. Rumelt describes bad strategy as being vague, filled with slogans, and focused on goals rather than the actual steps to achieve them. Bad strategy lacks a clear analysis of the problem and is commonly just a wish list of aspirations without a real plan. A common cause of bad strategy is a refusal to make hard choices and avoid focusing on specific issues, instead scattering resources and efforts too broadly.

By contrast, Rumelt describes a good strategy as being coherent, focused, and grounded in clear reasoning. It identifies the key issues facing an organisation and provides a solution. 

The core of a good strategy, which Rumelt calls the kernel, consists of a:

• Diagnosis: A clear-sighted analysis of the challenge or problem.

• Guiding Policy: An overarching approach that will address the challenge.

• Coherent Actions: Specific, coordinated actions to implement the guiding policy.

Good strategies are coherent and based on rational thought. They link cause and effect, often focusing on leverage points within an organisation or market.

In my experience looking at business and marketing strategies, it’s uncommon to see a specific challenge clearly defined. Analysis more commonly stops after listing perceived weaknesses and threats. What is more common is lofty goals (be viewed as the best x in y category), a fuzzy statement about how to win (we’ll achieve this through our commitment to operational excellence and innovation), by doing a bunch of things (insert list of activities from the relevant departments that they probably wanted to do anyway), measured by hitting our financial objectives. The real strategy is we don’t have a strategy, just a dream and a rough plan.

The result is usually that the organisation cannot resource everything it has planned because it spreads itself too thin. It’s little wonder people misunderstand and mistrust strategy. I’ve used the example of a business strategy, but the same is true for marketing and communications, where a plan posing as strategy is frighteningly common. 

To change people’s perspectives on the role and value of strategy, we all need to experience good strategy. And if the stakes are high, you need a good strategy.

Something I find useful is getting stakeholders to agree on what success looks like at the start of a project. This helps ensure the project results in a good strategy. Based on Rumelt’s definitions, we can agree that a good strategy must:

  • Have realistic goals.
  • Diagnosis of the challenge is clear and evidence based.
  • Guiding policy leverages our advantages––small but critical areas where focused effort can produce disproportionately large results
  • Actions are focused on the most important goal, are coherent, and can be delivered
  • Policies are in place to ensure the strategy can evolve based on new information and changing circumstances.
  • Leaders are capable and empowered to make difficult choices, accept hard truths about the organisation’s challenges, and focus on solving the right problems.

I don’t think for a second we’ll solve the problem of bad strategy, but I do believe that leaders genuinely want good strategies. A good strategist is a good problem solver—able to understand the root causes of a problem and devise innovative ways to solve it. Doing strategy well simply means investing time in it. 

If strategy were a fictional character, I think it would be Hermoine Granger. Hermione excels in planning and foresight throughout the series. Whether it’s her intricate use of time-turners or her preparation for the final battle against Voldemort, Hermione often thinks several steps ahead, identifying potential threats and solutions before others. Her strategic thinking is grounded in research, logic, and a keen sense of justice, which allows her to guide Harry and Ron toward victory against formidable odds.

‍

Image: Specsavers’ strategy is to show how mistakes are easily made if your eyesight is failing. The strategy responds to the problem of people ignoring or putting off getting their eyes checked as frequently as they should. This campaign us part of their brand platform, Should’ve gone to Specsavers and presented ads in Melbourne airport welcoming passengers to Sydney. The campaign strategy solves a clear problem, has a guiding policy or approach, and coherent actions. It's a good strategy.