Making you more effective through Strategy, Product, and OKRs
A Leading Strategy Expert Shares the Top 5 Excuses CEOs Use to Avoid Doing Strategy
“I still refuse to do strategy.” Image via Midjourney
And one eye-opening reason you can’t do without it
Roger L. Martin has consulted with more CEOs and had more success with strategy than perhaps anyone.
From 2000 to 2009, Martin acted as P&G CEO A.G. Lafley’s personal strategy consultant, a partnership chronicled in their book “Playing to Win.”
As a result of their collaboration, P&G’s results over that decade speak for themselves:
“P&G sales doubled and profits quadrupled. Earnings per share increased 12 percent per year. P&G’s share price increased by more than 80 percent in a decade that saw the S&P 500 go down overall. Company market capitalization more than doubled, placing P&G among the most valuable companies in the world.”
Lafley, A.G.; Martin, Roger L.. Playing to Win: How Strategy Really Works (p. 253). Harvard Business Review Press. Kindle Edition.
But despite this kind of track record, not all of his clients were open to improving their approach to strategy.
Recently, Martin opened up about the five reasons he’s heard the most from CEOs who refuse to do strategy:
1. Tough leaders act, they don’t talk
2. “Execution” is always more important than strategy
3. They “don’t have time” for strategy
4. They misquote Peter Drucker
5. They misunderstand Henry Mintzberg’s concept of “Emergent Strategy”
Let’s dig into each:
No Strategy Excuse #1: Tough Leaders Act, They Don’t Talk
There’s one breed of leader whose personal brand is based on relentless motion.
They get bored quickly and prefer to roll up their sleeves and jump into the next “fire” and get things done.
They see strategy as something for people who prefer talking in meetings to taking action.
From their point of view, “tough” leaders don’t need strategy because they’re too busy getting things done.
While they have a phenomenal work ethic and endless energy, the question to ask these leaders is whether they’re focused on doing the right things…?
No Strategy Excuse #2: “Execution” is Always More Important Than Strategy
Another group of leaders believes that “execution” is “better” than strategy — that just randomly “executing” will somehow achieve the desired business results.
This is the sentiment summed up so well by JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon when he said:
“I’d rather have a first-rate execution and second-rate strategy any time than a brilliant idea and mediocre management.”
Jamie Dimon, CEO, JPMorgan Chase
Where to draw the line
The problem is, that it’s impossible to draw a clear line where “strategy” ends and “execution” begins.
It’s not determined by role, as every role has elements of strategy and execution.
And it’s not determined by your level in the organization. Everyone makes the most basic choice: How to divide their time between everything they have to get done.
Because strategy and execution are part of a continuous series of nested choices across any organization, trying to figure out where one ends and the other begins will always remain a losing mental exercise.
Ultimately, both are important.
No Strategy Excuse #3: There’s “No Time” for Strategy
This third group of leaders claims there’s simply “no time” to “waste” doing strategy.
While it’s true there may be industries or markets that are legitimately moving at a faster pace than ever before now, such as AI as of the time of this writing.
“The market and our competition is moving so fast, we don’t have time for strategy.”
As if being thoughtful and intentional with our choices isn’t important enough to take the time, so let’s just “throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.”
No Strategy Excuse #4: Misquoting Peter Drucker
Many business people are uncomfortable with strategy like to quote Peter Drucker:
“Culture eats strategy for breakfast.”
NEVER said by Peter Drucker. Ever.
They claim their focus on organizational culture makes strategy somehow unnecessary.
This is problematic for two reasons:
Peter Drucker never said it
The “culture” these leaders create frequently isn’t the kind of culture that employees thrive in or take care of customers
But that doesn’t keep executives from latching onto this idea and repeating it.
They’re comfortable with it because it “sounds” like something strong leaders would say while giving them cover from having to do strategy.
No Strategy Excuse #5: Misinterpreting Henry Mintzberg’s Concept of “Emergent Strategy”
Henry Mintzberg framed the term “Emergent Strategy” in the 70s as a way to think about dealing with increasing change.
The only problem is, that most people know zero about Mintzberg, and just take those two words out of context — “emergent” and “strategy.” They then use them to justify taking a “let’s see what happens approach,” attempting to keep their “options open.”
Mintzberg’s notion of “emergent strategy” has nothing to do with not making choices. His point was that while you do need to be clear about your strategy, you couldn’t stick rigidly to it as conditions changed.
And The Main Reason You Can’t Do Without Strategy
Too many organizations invest in “me too” strategies by copying the market leader.
“Just like Instagram, only better!”
What they don’t realize is trying to copy the category leader means they’ll always be stuck trying to play catch-up.
And all many of them end up doing is burning through all their cash just to reach a distant third place.
Or they “play just to play,” to be part of the industry.
The Only Choice to Win
Designing a set of strategic choices is their only opportunity to design a different future, to create a bold and different strategy that will set them up to “leapfrog” the leader.
It’s good both for the organization, as well as for their customers.
Customers benefit when organizations explicitly target “winning” in unique, hard-to-copy ways.
Look at Southwest Airlines, which refused to follow the conventional hub-and-spoke airline strategy.
Or Netflix, which was looking to remove the pain of rewind fees.
Or Apple, for making good design and usability key components of their product strategy.
None were content to “play to play,” but create something uniquely different.
Conclusion
There are a number of reasons not to do strategy.
But if you’re looking to innovate and create something new, it can be a powerful way to create a different future.
Strategy doesn’t need to be complex or reserved only for a select few.
Using Roger Martin‘s “Playing to Win” framework, strategy can be simple, effective, and accessible.
