The Strategist and the Strategist

In the realm of strategy, it is useful to distinguish between those who think about strategy and those who actively implement it. This differentiation is not merely semantic; it has implications for how organizations approach strategic planning and execution.

A Talking Strategy podcast with Beatrice Heuser, Paul O’Neill, and Emilie Cleret recently called my attention to the fact that the French language already recognizes this distinction through two separate words: “stratège” and “stratégiste.”

Incidentally, I love the fact that in French there are two different words. One is the stratège and one is the stratégiste. The stratégiste is the one who writes about war and philosophises about war, is writing about strategy. And the stratège is the one who actually is the practitioner in the field. The ideal person, from what you are describing, is the person who combines both, and has the experience of the stratège in order then to become the stratégiste.

We should introduce a similar differentiation in English. It would be very helpful, because some people were pure armchair strategists, like Machiavelli. Others were indeed practitioners, and it is very interesting how their experience always informed those practitioners who turned into stratégistes writing about it.

I agree having a similar differentiation in English would be valuable, as it would allow us to identify and discuss the roles of the thinker and the practitioner.

In my view, a true practitioner in the field is someone who not only thinks about strategy but also works to realize it by ensuring its execution and adaptation along the way. The English word “strategist” is more commonly associated with the thinker, the one who theorizes about strategy, rather than the practitioner who puts it into action by supporting execution and adaptation.

To find a suitable term for the practitioner, we can turn to the Greek language. The word “tekton,” meaning builder, is the root of the word architect. By combining “strategos” (military general) and “tekton,” we can coin the term “stratotect” to represent the strategic practitioner who builds and executes strategies.

The comparison to architecture is illuminating. Just as practicing architects design what can be built, stratotects must design strategies that can be implemented. There are many insights the field of architecture can bring to the practice of effective strategy, perhaps to be explored in the future.

While the term “stratotect” may not roll off the tongue and is unlikely to find its way into our everyday lexicon, the concept it represents is still worth differentiating. In my work advising Chief Strategy Officers, I already use the term “strategy leader” rather than strategist. See my article on the evolving mandate of the strategy leader.

At its core, leadership is about seeing through one’s vision and plans. Therefore, I propose that we distinguish between the “strategist,” one who thinks and writes about strategy, and the “strategy leader,” the practitioner who brings strategy to life in the field.

By recognizing and leveraging the unique contributions of both strategists and strategy leaders, organizations can develop more robust, adaptable, and ultimately successful strategies. As we navigate an increasingly complex and unpredictable world, this distinction will only become more critical to our understanding and practice of strategy.