Strategy without a Strategy

Strategy is mostly seen as a process with a discrete start (an analysis, a new mission, a new CEO, an external event, and so on), a discrete duration (a strategy for 2020, a 3-year plan and so on), and a discrete ending (a written plan, a successfully executed strategy, reaching a particular goal or milestone, and so on). Along these lines, the common sense idea that organizations need ‘a’ strategy is widespread.

This strategy is typically the result of a strategy formulation process and is supposed to guide an organization’s actions for a particular period – the implementation of the strategy. Accordingly, in research, teaching, consulting and practice there is a lot of emphasis on generating discrete strategies that can be communicated, analyzed, executed, or taught.

In today’s turbulent times we can question, though, whether looking at strategy as an ‘episode’ – with a clear start, duration and end – and whether aiming for ‘a’ strategy as a key outcome is still useful. If things are changing all the time, and if we have to try out things anyway before we are confident enough that we are on the right track, is it still useful to formulate ‘a’ strategy?

In today’s turbulent times we can question whether looking at strategy as an ‘episode’ – with a clear start, duration and end – and whether aiming for ‘a’ strategy as a key outcome is still useful."

Or is it more natural to look at strategy as an ongoing process that continuously produces the insights, decisions and actions that make an organization move forward? At the end, I would think no person or organization on this globe actually needs ‘a’ strategy. It is at best a means to guide action. And if this is the case, wouldn’t it be more useful to focus directly on insights, decisions, and actions as the main outcome of strategy-making than ‘a’ strategy?

Letting go the notion of strategy as a discrete outcome may seem controversial at first sight. After all, much attention is currently being paid to generate such outcome and many leaders would argue they need ‘a’ strategy for e.g. the next three years. But at a closer watch, it makes a lot of sense to let this idea go, especially in a world that is in constant flux.

With the uncertainty, complexity and dynamics that organizations are facing, strategy has to be continuously monitored and adjusted when needed. Spending time on formulating an overarching strategy in such circumstances seems largely a waste of time since it will be incomplete and outdated as soon as it is formulated – or even before that. Furthermore, the opportunity costs associated with spending time on formulating strategy rather than on actually doing things can be quite substantial. We can ask whether we can afford this and whether we cannot spend our time and money better otherwise.

Of course, letting go the idea of ‘a’ strategy as main focus of strategy-making doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t formulate anything. After all, organizations only work if and because there is communication. So, we certainly need to express our insights, decisions and actions so that we can share, improve and act upon them. Also, we need a frame of reference so that we know what we will deviate from when circumstances change.

But such frame of reference does not have to be a single, formulated strategy. It can also be a list of relevant and related insights, decisions and actions. Since these are the things that keep the process going they may offer more actual guidance than a formulated strategy does. Therefore, instead of a formulated strategy, wouldn't it more effective to focus our attention on creating and maintaining a backlog containing the relevant strategic insights, decisions and actions?

Shifting the focus of strategy from formulating and implementing ‘a’ strategy to a process producing strategic insights, decisions, and actions is not only a matter of aiming for different outcomes. It changes the strategy process from something episodic to a process that is ongoing all the time and never really starts or stops. In such ongoing, or continuous strategy process, strategy generation and execution (or more generally thinking and doing) go hand in hand, thereby dissolving the watershed between them. Rather than being separate processes or stages in a process, they mutually trigger, influence and create each other all the time.