4.1
By Jens Holmgren and Christina Nüssler, Authors and Advisors, updated June 2024
We find great value in thinking of strategy as a bridge connecting the present as it is experienced to the future as it is desired. Not a straight, simple bridge – for in reality, the paths to realizing the desired future are rarely so linear. Rather, it is a bridge with a clear destination that indicates several possible routes.
With this bridge metaphor, we also affirm that working with strategy presupposes that the organization—and its key actors—have defined a direction; a vision for the future—and at the same time understand their present; that which the organization bases itself on and the reason it exists (its mission).
Just as strategy is not something without a direction and a starting point, it is also not something without the actors who commit to the necessary change that the strategy represents – actors who recognize the need for a strategy and take responsibility for it. We are inspired here by Klaudi’s definition of strategic leadership as:
“...the process through which a group of relevant actors, with formal leadership as responsible, in relation to the overall mission and vision and in light of the strategic situation, make decisions and continuously prioritize, revise, and adjust long-term goals...” (Klaudi Klausen, Strategic Leadership. The Many Arenas, 2010)
Strategy helps to create binding priorities among the key actors within and around an organization. As a common term for the ways in which one implements vision and mission through selected focus areas or initiatives, strategy is about choosing together to concentrate on the most essential aspects of a given situation – based on data, knowledge, and belief in what will best advance the organization on its journey toward the desired future.
Also read: Mission and Vision in strategic work
Here, data and knowledge refer both to external factors—which currently and potentially can have a decisive impact on the organization’s performance and future opportunities (“the outside”)—and to data and knowledge about the organization’s internal resources and potentials (“the inside”).
As Klaudi points out, “every single leader, at their respective level, is responsible for thinking and acting strategically in accordance with the organization’s overall policies and strategies.” (Klaudi Klausen, Strategic Leadership in the Public Sector. Project, Forecast, Imagine, 2014)
Thus, a company’s strategy is not owned by a select few. The viability of a strategy depends on leaders and employees ensuring that these binding priorities become common property and are translated into local priorities, actions, and practices. And this must be done with an eye on the continuous necessary adaptation to the challenges and changes that arise in everyday operations.
In our view, certain parameters must be met before we can rightly speak of a strategy with strategic substance. A company’s strategy addresses the overall and long-term – the factors that will carry the organization into the future. A strategy is holistic by nature, drawing on relevant data from many angles, both external and internal. Finally, a strategy must be explicit so that it helps the organization prioritize.
Also read: Strategy Execution: How to do it
We also argue that strategy development and strategy implementation are parts of the same process and should be treated as such. In a classic view of strategic leadership, strategy is developed in the initial phase by a limited group of actors, and only when the content of the strategy is fully established does the implementation begin.
New perspectives on designing successful strategic processes take a much more nuanced view of how development and implementation go hand in hand.
When a certain group of actors embarks on developing a strategy with the aim of taking the organization to a particular place, these actors already begin to “act in accordance with the strategy,” and one could argue that strategy implementation is already underway.
In strategic processes where a broader group of the organization’s leaders and employees is involved in the development of the strategy from an early stage, this pattern is reinforced, and the prerequisites for faster (and perhaps better) implementation of the strategy’s intent are increased.
The article continues below the box.
The article about what strategy is—and what it is not—is from the book Strategic Management for Public Sector Leaders, published by Samfundslitteratur in 2020. The authors, Jens Holmgren and Christina Nüssler, have both worked as advisors at CfL.
Jens Holmgren is Head of Section and Associate Professor at the Department of Economics and Management at Aalborg University. He holds an MSc in Economics and a PhD in Strategic Management. Christina Nüssler is a Senior Consultant at COK, the Center for Public Sector Competency Development, and holds an MSc in Business Administration with a specialization in Strategy and Management.
With so many originators of strategic thinking and numerous angles on strategy – in addition to the now common use of the term – it becomes extraordinarily important to ask: When is something a strategy, and when is it not? Because if strategy is everything, it is nothing!
According to Eisenhardt and Sull (2001), strategy is not “a bunch of buzzwords, a financial forecast, a mission or vision, an exhaustive checklist, a pep talk, or something extremely comprehensive and complex.”
If a company’s strategy primarily consists of buzzwords – a catch-all for modern and popular terms (including technical or professional terms) that many people use without fully understanding their precise meaning – then the strategy loses its significance and uniqueness.
Externally, such a buzzword-strategy – full of positively charged and proactive words – might appear convincing and current. However, it can also resemble every other strategy and, therefore, say very little about the specific context in which it is meant to have an impact. For the organization’s own leaders and employees—those closest to the operation—such a strategy can sound hollow and be very difficult to connect with (Eisenhardt & Sull 2001; Sull 2015).
A strategy is also not a projection of financial goals or a set of norms. Yes, it sets a clear expectation that the organization should grow by, say, five percent or achieve its core task with ten percent fewer resources, but that does not help leaders or employees understand why or how.
Thus, a financial forecast is not a strategy, although it can be a goal of the strategy.
Strategy is also not the organization’s mission or vision. These are undoubtedly important concepts surrounding strategy, but strategy is a step closer to being guiding and action-oriented than both mission and vision should be.
On the other hand, strategy is not an exhaustive checklist or a detailed manual that you must consult to remember what to do next. A strategy should not operate on such a granular level. This risks paralyzing the organization’s leaders and employees rather than mobilizing them.
There may be many areas where manuals and process descriptions are supportive and entirely appropriate—but that is not strategy.
Additionally, let us add that strategy is not short-term, strategy is not operations, and strategy is not one-sided.
Even though a strategy must be translatable into very concrete actions in daily practice and have consequences for decisions made here and now, strategy is not short-term. Strategy is long-term and concerns what the organization aims to succeed with in the longer run.
Therefore, strategy is not operations, even though operational priorities and what fills day-to-day work should align with the strategy.
In essence, strategy is the foundation for sound operational decisions and provides a basis for following up on operational results, which over time may necessitate adjustments in the strategic focus areas. In an ideal world, strategy and operations “merge,” but strategy does not begin as operations.
The article continues below the box.
This is how CfL works with strategy – from purpose and analysis to execution.
Finally, a strategy should not be comprehensive and complex. The essence of a strategy should rather be “light as a feather” or silent – like a sheet of paper when it hits the floor. In other words, the essence of the strategy should ideally be conveyed on a single page rather than in a large, heavy document that risks rendering the message inaccessible and difficult to implement.
Additionally, we would like to emphasize: Strategy is not short-term, strategy is not operations, and strategy is not one-sided.
Although a strategy should be translatable into concrete actions in daily practice and have consequences for decisions made now, strategy is not short-term. Strategy is long-term and pertains to what the organization aspires to achieve in the future.
Therefore, strategy is not operations, even though the operational priorities and what fills day-to-day work should align with the strategy.
Strategy is the foundation for sound operational arrangements and allows for follow-up on operational results that over time may require adjustments to the strategic focus areas. In an ideal world, strategy and operations “meld” together, but strategy does not begin as operations.