STRATEGY SESSIONS  #9

LIMITING ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING STRATEGY AND STRATEGISTS

by Dr. Steve Payne

 

What comes to mind when the word “strategy” is encountered in a sentence or statement? 

People likely think about military strategies, game or sport strategies, or competitive strategies used by business firms.  They probably have assumptions such as those below:

1) Strategies are formulated by those at the top or very high in a military, government, or business organization.  Other people in these organizations merely or mostly try to carry out these strategies.

2) Those who develop strategies, such as in business and even in games of chess or bridge, are special individuals with powerful intellectual skills to anticipate many possible moves and counter-moves well in advance.

3) Strategists often compromise moral values in selecting and undertaking their decisions.  

Due to these and other common assumptions concerning strategy formulation, many people fail to recognize their own capability to develop a basic and successful strategic process for handling major challenges that they are facing.   

Strategy formulation does not have to be that analytical or complex to be helpful.  A strategy, too, is often more useful when it is fairly simple and straight-forward to understand and undertake.  Strategy can be developed by a sole individual who confronts a particular challenge and needs to find a reasonable approach to take.  We don’t have to be grand champions or authority figures to discover a useful strategy to overcome a thorny problem.  We just need to believe that some focused attention on problem solving will likely be better for us than ignoring the problem, having a defeatist attitude, or going into a panic.   

We shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  You might not have powerful analytical skills or even experience before in using a strategic decision-making approach, but so what?  If a rough and inexperienced effort to develop a strategy improves your chance of a successful resolution of a major challenge by only some small percentage over a random choice or “shot in the dark,” it should be worth some minimal time and effort.

 

To some, the notion of trying to become more of a strategist might be a turn-off.  Some probably associate strategy and strategists with individuals who are so committed to “getting ahead” or to succeeding that they will do almost anything to reach these goals.  Of course, there are psychopaths or just those who seem willing to compromise conventional moral standards “to climb to the top over others.”  For most of us, though, our personal values and goals have strong, or at least moderate, moral components.  When we do not fully integrate these moral values and goals into our strategic thinking and decision making, then we are in some danger of losing moral direction.

 

Those who are more unethical probably do have certain competitive advantages in getting ahead or achieving conventional measures of success.  They likely have fewer obstacles and/or more options open to them in their choosing decisions and actions.  Yet associated with these advantages are risks of their actions being discovered and deemed unacceptable by others.  Choosing strategies that don’t align well with personal or social values can also bring the fear of discovery of these unethical activities by others.  Having a “skeleton in one’s closet” can mean discomfort or lack of full satisfaction with apparent success. 

 

I believe that these three and other assumptions about strategy and strategists that many people have can limit their interest in or inclination toward becoming a more strategic decision maker.  Some of us also have good intentions of becoming more thoughtful and careful regarding our major career or life decisions, but we continue to have poor “follow through” and can look back with regret at certain of these previous decisions.