Putting the Strategy in Strategic Preparation
Putting the Strategy in Strategic Preparation
After spending some time in the details of measurement, goal setting and prioritization, let’s pull up to the highest levels of Strategic Preparation with a discussion of organizational strategy itself. Frankly, there is plenty written on the how and why of strategy, with entire careers and consulting firms built upon selling strategy as the answer to all things. Like all tools, organizational strategy has a specific set of uses. When you clearly articulate and communicate your company strategy, you allow everyone in your organization to decide “what to do next?” and “why?” which are arguably the most important questions about work.
Amongst myriad approaches to strategy, I was mentored in the Playing to Win framework published by Martin and Lafley based on their work between the Monitor Group and Procter and Gamble. Before you jump to criticize the source of the lessons, Goodall and Buckingham in 9 Lies About Work would remind you that if you want to learn from real examples in the real world, get ready to be upset by the behavior from those examples. Contender for most egregious here.
Now, let’s look briefly at the Playing to Win framework which consists of five interlocking questions, whose answers will change iteratively as you proceed through the exercise. For example, clarifying your capabilities may cause you to go back and change your answers on how you will win.
Every time I’ve deployed this framework, the work tends to break naturally into three parts:
The answers to the first three questions, which can be captured nicely in document format for communication purposes,
An attempt to capture capabilities as a long, vaguely defined list on a spreadsheet, and
A half-hearted attempt to similarly list and/or impose vague management systems.
I’ve updated the graphic below to include other relevant frameworks revealing an approach that ties together multiple tools into one grand unified theory of everything. Let’s focus on the first three questions for now to define the core of your strategy. Multiple future posts will explore Capabilities and Management systems, when taken together are the way your organization gets stuff done.
What is your winning aspiration?
What is the purpose of your entire organization, your why? Why do you exist at all? In answering this crucial question, Playing to Win offers tremendous guidance, as does Lencioni’s The Advantage. In addition, check out the series on Mission, followed by the post on Concept Stage of Maturity. Remember, the answer to this question is not “what you do,” rather it is “why” you do it. Once you’ve figured out your why, write it down and communicate and reinforce it, forever.
Of note, “transforming” an industry is a common winning aspiration, which unfortunately often requires a victim and villain. This paradigm is a quick way to get things rolling (drawing on fear and anger), but eventually, given the power of incumbency, you might have to work with that villain which really hurts your credibility. The only thing worse than compromising with your villain is NOT working with whomever you need to to achieve your mission. To that end, when considering your ”why,” aim for the positive emotions that stem from what you want to see more of now and in the future.
Where will we play?
Answering the Where to Play question requires you to leave your comfort zone to talk to potential customers, all while resisting distraction and premature pivots and diversification. We’ve covered this topic in some depth in the Concept & Product/Market Fit stages of maturity. This is perhaps the most “strategic” of the strategy questions, so a review of Playing to Win, Blue Ocean Strategy, The Advantage or countless other books can help you segment, create and win in markets.
How will we win?
Considering reframing this question to “what is our unfair advantage?” To sharpen your answer, look critically at your organization while asking, “What things can we do that no one else can?” Unfair advantages can be contracts, relationships, technical or policy knowledge, new technologies, etc. Access to massive capital alone is incredibly advantageous, but without some other super power, you will probably just waste the money.
Additionally, do not rely on unfair advantages that you don’t actually have. Companies can and must gain capabilities as they grow and scale, but if you don’t already have an unfair advantage based on the knowledge, skills, relationships of your founding team, you are in big trouble. When you do hire them, they will be pissed that they don’t have more control and ownership and may end up becoming a late co-founder which is tricky. To reiterate: only start the business if you can confidently name your unfair advantage.
Take the time together as senior leadership team to answer these questions, review the source materials (or get help) making choices and iterating on them regularly as the world changes around you. Every time you develop a new set solid answers, communicate them relentlessly and test the quality of your answers by using them to set your goals and then your company priorities. When done poorly, you’ve haphazardly distributed the task of resolving ambiguity. When done properly, you give clear guidance to future choices made all across the organization. With all this in place, we can dig into understanding capabilities: what you can actually get done and what needs to change.