Strategic Intent

I recently picked up a very small book in the strategy shelves of my local library.  It was from the Harvard Business Review classics series and it dealt with strategic intent.  I didn't really need to get the book out being quite familiar with the term and having read the book Competing for the Future by Hamel and Prahalad but it just looked appealing so I grabbed it anyway (I love reading about strategy and that doesn't make me a nerd).

For me strategic intent is a key part of the actual essence of strategic management and more specifically strategic decision making.  It basically puts a dirty great big stake in the ground about where you want to be in the future (kind of like what you want to be when you grow up).  Once this is established, all actions, tasks, plans, tactics, budgets etc etc need to be moving towards this and not away from it.  There is a nice saying - the only way to work towards an objective is to work towards an objective, you shouldn't head off in the opposite direction.

Hamel and Prahalad use the Apollo program as an example, it was America's strategic intent to put a man on the moon and return him safely.  Once this intention (or vision, mission, guiding principle or whatever you call it) is established, it crystallises effort towards this goal.  If it is easy to understand, worthy, a stretch but achievable then it is these sorts of strategic intents that really can fire up an organisation.  How exciting is it to have the goal of returning 12% ROCE (return on capital employed), doesn't really make you leap out of bed in the morning.

I find strategy exciting and organisations that don't find the idea of working towards a worthy future goal exciting are probably not the most fun places to work.  Have a check of your own organisations strategic intent and ask yourself the following;

  • What is it?
  • Is it worthy and exciting?
  • How many people around here know it?
  • How many people around here get it?
Until next the blog..................

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mintzberg and Waters' strategy model

Image
It is interesting how some strategic management models come and go whilst other ones seem to survive the test of time.  In 1985 Henry Mintzberg (one of the leading strategic management thinkers) and James Waters developed a model to demonstrate how the strategy that is ultimately delivered is made of two parts; deliberate strategy (what the organisation set out to do) and emergent strategy (what happened on the way). In their original paper the model looks just a little clunky, word processing not as it is today, but very recognisable for all scholars and practitioners. And although the concept of the model hasn't changed at all, it does look a little funkier with a 'lick of paint'. The model still communicates with a simplicity that belies the revolutionary nature of what it was at the time.  It looks obvious with hindsight that of course we haven't got a crystal ball and the world changes so where we end up is a combination of where we were heade
Read more

Double Hermeneutic

I came across this term (pronounced 'her men you tic') in my strategic management PhD travels and was quite intrigued by it as it's both simple (despite its name) and very enlightening.  Hopefully I'll do the simple part justice here!!!! It was coined by  Anthony Giddens , a famous British sociologist, and it reveals a major difference in the way we should (stress on the should) theorise about the natural world versus our social world and of particular interest to me, theories about how we should manage people. In essence, a theory about our natural world has no impact on the natural world which remains the same no matter what we think.  For example it was previously thought that the world was flat (and yes there are some of you still out there) but that didn't change the shape of the earth which remained a sphere (oh yes it is).  This is a single hermeneutic. However in the social sciences this isn't the case and, if for example, a management theory gains su
Read more

If planning is everything, Maybe its nothing.

A blog back on my subject area, strategic planning or strategic management to use the correct term for the academic field. I have been reading an interesting article entitled 'If planning is everything, Maybe its nothing' written back in 1973 by Aaron Wildavsky.  It is almost a fore runner to one of the largest debates in strategic management, whether strategy should be planned and deliberate or it emerges naturally as part of general management activities. The article makes some very interesting points but it does read a little gloomily as though Mr Wildavsky hasn't got a lot of time for planners in general.  His particular interest is planning in the 3rd world (although it wasn't called the 3rd world then) and he observes that in amongst all the money poured into formal plans and planning, the results have been pretty disappointing. It raises another interesting argument/point and that is the difference between the plan and the outcomes.  He appears to be arguing t
Read more