What makes something strategic?
“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” George Orwell
Improper definitions can create illustrations.
For example, describing a product decision as "strategic" may convey more weightiness to it, when it's really just "bigger" or "harder."
But is this just semantics?
Not when the filters in which someone applies that language impacts the output.
Calling a product initiative "strategic" neither makes the "thing" itself strategic, nor does it mean that it's a particularly good strategy.
But, of course, people would prefer to have something strategic over tactical.
The reason why is that "strategic" sounds more important, higher status, bigger impact than to do something "tactical."
And this is true.
When an initiative that can be carried out against a well-thought out strategy is up against pure tactics, the strategy should win most of the time. Doesn't mean that tactics are bad, or that tactics without a strategy are useful.
In fact, most of the time, most decisions are tactical; most plans are just tactics; and most strategies are just bigger goals that rely upon tactics.
Given that just calling something strategic doesn't make it so, what then does?
What is a meaningful filter to which one can navigate the language maze of traps and mirages to land somewhere actually strategic?
And is strategy always necessary?
So let's start with the last question, "Is strategy always necessary?"
Sometimes there's not enough information, the market is too young, the company has almost no resources. Then it needs to just get moving.
You can't steer a parked car.
Turning the starter, pumping gas, and pressing the gas pedal are all tactics. And for a company that's in such an early stage, it needs to get moving. As a friend would say, "Get into traffic."
Is it possible to start from zero and have a strategy?
Yes. Is it preferable? Also yes.
But which still is more valuable? Tactics.
I am working on an idea which is largely in the realm of strategy. But the choice of the tactic, for me, has also been very strategic.
In my case, my resources as a single individual with no capital, no employees, who wants to enter a large market...I need a strategy.
However, with the same constraints, tackling a different type of market, I might not need a strategy. I just need to ship.
I would argue, however, that IF one has strengths in strategy and can execute and move the car, then doing both is better.
Why?
One attribute of a strategic decision, and one that is particularly good, is the ability to leverage resources for maximum returns.
If the decision does not involve many trade-offs, if the time-horizon is linear, if the causality is fixed and predictable, I don't think there's much strategy.
For example, if someone is the dominant leader in a stagnant, mature market, the decision to add another assembly line where all the costs, outputs and such are known is not a strategic decision.
However, if one has multiple options ahead of them, very limited resources, dynamic players with more resources or a market that is emergent, strategy matters.
Resource allocation -- people, capital, time -- becomes highly strategic when each choice limits optionality, and are largely 1-way.
What else makes something "strategic"?
It must have a path to win.
Unfortunately, poorly thought out strategy states that goal, "we need to win" or a linear, simple tactic "hire more people" or "increase sales in a given region" as strategy.
Strategic discussions are able to navigate the fog of war to see a path to victory. It's not deterministic -- that's what makes is a strategy.
Tactical minds think 1+1 = 2. Or in singular if-then statements, "if we do this, then the other party will do that" with no weighing of probabilities or options.
This is why mechanism design is perhaps the emergent super power for those who know how to leverage it.
It's also why strategy often needs a deep understanding of the field of play.
Strategic decisions and strategic thinkers are agile at the nuances of the field of play.
However, I have seen many leaders exhibit black and white judgments, limiting their vision of the field of play.
It's like looking at a chess board and playing tic tac toe.
Why does this often happen when leadership should always be a strategic role?
Aha!
This is the crux of the problems.
Organizations are internally political. Political people aren't necessary strategic when it comes to the business outcomes, even if they can be strategic for their personal outcomes.
Because many organization value those with primarily internal politics, high EQs, and such, but in doing so overlook the strategic insights they can bring in, leaders often lack strategy.
In part because so much is at stake, because many people feel ill-equipped, there rose the strategy consultants.
However, even the strategy consultants have been disrupted, as large companies build their own internal strategy teams.
The challenge is whether such internal teams are sufficient.
And more broadly, what to do when a company does not have the resources for such a team?