Thanks for your comment.
One thing I've come to appreciate is that in strategy there are few truly new ideas. Roger Martin's are of course terrific. A quick google of his definition of strategy leads to his website, where he states: "Strategy is not a long planning document; it is a set of interrelated and powerful choices that positions the organization to win." Indeed very similar to the definition I explain in my piece (and that I reinforce in my other piece on "Strategy is About Choices"), which I note is not my own.
His core *definition* of strategy, at least as noted on his website, does not explicitly feature customers. His *framework* for developing strategy does, as does the one I prefer to use, but have not yet written about.
In my experience, to be useful a fundamental definition of strategy needs to be simple, and directly link to commonly important testing or challenging questions. Only then can be an effective tool for avoiding or resolving a babel situation. In the case of my preferred definition, the kinds of questions that might be wielded in strategy debates or decision forums might be:
- “does this choice deal with uncertainty?"
- “are these choices truly coherent and clearly defined?”
- “does this build or sustain any competitive advantages or true differentiation that customers would pay for or prefer?”
- “are we being bold enough to unlock real value, or are we just talking about continuous improvement or marginal gains?”
If the answers to any are no, the discussion might either need to be triaged to a planning discussion, or the debate provoked into the right space.
For the reasons you mention, adding the customer explicitly into the definition of what is needed for a strategy to meet the bar might be essential for some companies. However, in my experience, it’s not always the case, hence not including it in my standard definition.
The element most often dropped from my definition is competitive advantage. But, in my experience, competitive advantage is so woefully misunderstood these days (see my other post on this), and is always a useful test. I also find leaders can focus too much on fighting direct competition instead of thinking more strategically about what their playing field really is or should/can be, and honest discussions of competitive advantage can flush that out.
Ultimately, ours is a nuanced and minor disagreement. What matters, as I appreciate you pointing out, is that an organization is aligned, both explicitly within its top leadership, and at least implicitly through its culture and processes, about their understanding of and approach to strategy. This is what the HBR article I linked to found characterized the most strategically mature organizations, and in my experience continues to be a rare and powerful achievement. You’re clearly focused on the right things.
Thanks again for your comments.
