What is Strategy, anyway?

I like definitions.

As a constructivist, i understand that the thinking process itself shapes everyone reality, thus language and communication are the way people allow their realities to interact. This makes shared definitions the basic building block between humans and relationships.

This also makes me worried. As a non-native english speaker (i’m, in fact, Italian), i feel that i will never be able to express the subtlety of my thoughts as in my mother tongue, thus i invite you, if you feel some of the concepts i’m talking about difficult to understand due to my scarce property of language, to express these remarks in the comments, and help me improve my written communication.

You probably feel like this is an unnecessarily long introduction. I should just talk about strategy, right? Well, i am doing, actually.

In my vision, you cannot talk about strategy, without mentioning communication, and this is the reason i am using all these words, and especially specifying that i’m constructivist, because this has a great impact about how i see the problem.

This is probably the moment to give a definition of strategy. I will not go further than searching “strategy definition” on Google, and copy-paste it.

What you get as the very first result is the following:

1. A method or plan chosen to bring about a desired future, such as achievement of a goal or solution to a problem.

2. The art and science of planning and marshalling resources for their most efficient and effective use. The term is derived from the Greek word for generalship or leading an army. See also tactics.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/strategy.html#ixzz47UQqsLZi

The site i have got this from is called business dictionary, thus it’s obvious that the more business-like definition come first, even if the most correct one is probably the second one, which comes from a more military point of view.

But i can only enjoy the first piece of definition, in particular the “solution to a problem” part.

I understand this could open to an infinite amount of circular definitions. What is a problem? What is a solution?

Forgive me for choosing not to stepping into this dangerous field, but allow me to bring a fact to your attention: in these definitions, strategy seems to be something extremely objective. Ok, here is a vision, and strategy is the roadmap to reach that vision. Or a problem with its unique solution.

You could probably point out that it’s not at all objective. In fact, the word desired points out that what is important is not about any future, but a desired future, in which, obviously, human perception is essential.

Are you satisfied with this? Ok, let’s say there is a future that i desire, therefore strategy should be just that plan i choose to get to that specific future.

Let’s try to break this down. I’m choosing a path, thus my strategy is open to both success and failure. I, according to this definition, have no way to tell beforehand if i will be successful, or if i will fail. This is probably what we experience in real life. I have a goal, i choose a path, and i succeed or fail, depending several factors, both endogenous and exogenous.

Is it just me, or this definition feels still too…rational?

Those working for an enterprise, or just those struggling to reach a personal goal, may understand what i mean, which involves the complexity of choices and situations. Rationality and emotions.

As a European i was brought up believing in the power of rationality above all else. Every decision should be made in a rational way. Every strategy weighted on rational reasons. There is no place for emotions, for contradictions, for paradoxes.

In the past months there has been much talking about emotional intelligence, and its importance for leadership and strategy. I feel the words are new and fancy, but what we are really talking about are plain old empathy and charisma, which is obviously involved in strategy.

But still, does emotional intelligence provide a good integration to the definition of strategy? It surely involves people, but again, it’s seems to have nothing to do with the core of the problem, just its application to everyday life.

Apparently there are so many elements to strategy! And we are not even talking which kind of strategy we are talking about, just assessing it from a general perspective!

As a strategic consultant, you will understand, i can only appreciate the importance of this particular definition.

Allow me to give my own personal, constructivist perspective to the issue.

To me, a strategy can be applied to any situation that is to be changed. It involves, surely, actions, but these actions have to influence people, thus can be considered acts of communication. And what about the situation? In could be a problem to solve, or an objective to reach, but in general we could say it’s a false equilibrium, a situation that is like that but it should not be. And our perception in this situation is at the very core of the issue. I like to call this a paradox, because this term disrupts any hint of rationality in the situation.

I would like to close this small essay rephrasing my personal definition of strategy.

Strategy is the act of communication that solves a paradox. Everything else is execution.

What do you think about it? Let me know in the comments!