Exhaustive Analysis of Good Strategy / Bad Strategy

The Core Meaning and Fundamental Structure of Strategy

Strategy is fundamentally about identifying the one or two critical issues in a situation and designing a way of coordinating and focusing actions to deal with them. A good strategy is simple and obvious in hindsight, but it does not emerge from standardized management tools or fill-in-the-blanks schemes. Instead, it involves discovering the pivot points that multiply the effectiveness of effort. A classic historical example is Admiral Lord Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar in 18051805. Facing a combined Franco-Spanish fleet of 3333 ships with only 2727 British vessels, Nelson broke traditional naval tactics. Instead of firing broadsides in parallel lines, he split his fleet into two columns to strike the enemy perpendicularly. This broke the coherence of the enemy fleet and allowed more experienced British captains to win a melee, resulting in the loss of 2222 enemy ships and zero British ships. Strategy is the application of strength against weakness or to the most promising opportunities.

At its heart, strategy work is the design of a cohesive response to a high-stakes challenge. It is not ambition, leadership, or vision alone, although those elements are important. Ambition is the zeal to excel; determination is commitment; innovation is engineering new ways to do things; and inspirational leadership motivates sacrifice. Strategy, however, selects the path and determines how and where those other virtues are applied. A strategy that fails to define Plausible and feasible immediate actions is missing its most critical logic. This is the common failure of executives who confuse strategy with goal setting. If an organization's process is merely setting targets—such as market share or profit goals—without a problem-solving approach, it is performing goal setting, not strategy.

The Kernel of Good Strategy

A good strategy has an essential logical structure called the kernel, which consists of three elements: a diagnosis, a guiding policy, and coherent actions. The diagnosis defines or explains the nature of the challenge, simplifying reality by identifying critical aspects of the situation. An insightful diagnosis can transform the view of a situation, such as Lou Gerstner’s 19931993 shift at IBM from viewing the company as too integrated to seeing its integration as its unique consulting advantage. The guiding policy is an overall approach chosen to cope with the obstacles identified in the diagnosis. It provides direction without defining the exact trip, like a guardrail on a highway. Coherent actions are coordinated policies, resource commitments, and steps designed to carry out the guiding policy. In strategy, these actions are not details; they are the leverage that makes the concept effective. Coherence provides strength by ensuring actions build upon one another rather than canceling each other out.

Hallmarks and Hallucinogens of Bad Strategy

Bad strategy is not simply the absence of good strategy; it has its own logic and foundations. It is often created to avoid the pain of making difficult choices. The four major hallmarks of bad strategy include fluff, the failure to face the challenge, mistaking goals for strategy, and bad strategic objectives. Fluff is jargon masquerading as strategic thought; for instance, a bank defining its strategy as "customer-centric intermediation" is merely saying it is a bank. Failure to face the challenge occurs when the strategy does not define the problem, as seen with International Harvester's 19791979 plan that ignored its inefficient work organization and poor labor relations, leading to losses over $3 billion\text{\$3 billion} between 19791979 and 18951895. Mistaking goals for strategy involves treating desire as a plan, such as Chad Logan’s 20/2020/20 plan (growth of 20%20\% and margin of 20%20\%) which lacked any action beyond motivation.

Bad strategic objectives are often a "dog’s dinner" of unrelated tasks or are unreachable "blue-sky" goals. An example of blue-sky objectives is seen in the Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSDLAUSD) 20062006 plan, which called for "transformational leadership" without diagnosing why previous efforts failed or how to bypass entrenched bureaucracies. In LAUSDLAUSD, 309309 of 991991 schools failed targets, and dropout rates reached 33%33\% for black students and 28%28\% for Hispanic students. Strategic objectives should be proximate—close enough to be feasible and within the organization's current grasp.

Sources of Strategic Power: Leverage and Design

One natural advantage of good strategy is its unexpectedness, arising because most organizations do not focus their resources. In 19971997, Steve Jobs saved Apple not by seeking market share but by shrinking the company to a scale it could survive. He cut 1515 desktop models to 11, cut all portable models to 11 laptop, and reduced inventory by more than 80%80\%. Strategy also creates power through leverage, which involves a mixture of anticipation, pivot points, and concentration. Pierre Wack at Shell anticipated the oil crisis of 19701970 by analyzing the needs of oil-producing countries. Leverage is applied at a pivot point to multiply the effect of effort, such as Harold Williams at the Getty Trust deciding to use an annual budget of over $65 million\text{\$65 million} to transform the study and conservation of art rather than just buying expensive paintings.

Design is another source of power, emphasizing that strategy is constructed rather than just chosen. As seen with Hannibal at the Battle of Cannae in 216 B.C.216\text{ B.C.}, he designed a trap where his center line executed a mock retreat, drawing the Roman army of 85,00085,000 into a pocket where they were surrounded by 55,00055,000 Carthaginians. Tight integration of resources is necessary when the challenge is high. If resources are high-quality, the need for tight integration decreases. This trade-off is central to design-type strategy. Paccar, for example, maintains a consistent market share of 25%25\% in a cyclical industry by focusing on high-quality trucks for owner-operators, yielding an ROEROE of 16%16\% compared to the industry average of 12%12\%.

Overcoming Inertia and Entropy

Inertia is an organization's resistance to change, while entropy is the natural decay of order. Organizational inertia includes the inertia of routine, cultural inertia, and inertia by proxy. Continental Airlines displayed the inertia of routine during deregulation by continuing to use cost-plus pricing models that ignores competition. Cultural inertia is exemplified by AT&TAT\&T, where a research-heavy culture prevented effective product development. Ending entropy requires constant management, as seen at Denton's Inc., where a hump chart analysis of its 2828 locations revealed that half were losing money, canceling out the profits of the best stores. General Motors underwent a slow decay of Alfred Sloan’s original product policy, leading to a blurred brand identity where multiple cars competed at the same $25,500\text{\$25,500} price point, eventually leading to its 20092009 bankruptcy.

Thinking Like a Strategist

Strategies should be viewed as scientific hypotheses—educated guesses about what will work, which are then tested through action. Howard Schultz at Starbucks observed the Milanese espresso bars as an anomaly in the American context. He tested his hypothesis through Il Giornale, eventually refining the model by adding chairs and nonfat milk to suit American tastes. This process of learning from anomalies and capturing proprietary information is the science of strategy. Strategists must also fight their own cognitive biases, such as "the inside view," which leads people to believe "this time is different." During the 20082008 financial crisis, the inside view blinded leaders to the historical precedent of credit-fueled real estate booms. Household debt rose from 60%60\% of income in 19841984 to 130%130\% in 20072007, while firms like Bear Stearns operated with leverage as high as 32 to 132\text{ to }1. Successful strategy requires keeping ones head, using independent judgment, and applying analytical tools like "create-destroy" and panels of experts to challenge one's own assumptions.