Strategy is a very frequent topic in corporate and academic discussions, and is certainly fundamental to the survival of companies. Although the topic emerged in business and academic circles in the 1900s, it wasn't until the 1960s that the first formal works on strategy focused on the business area appeared.
Strategy can be analyzed from various perspectives that have evolved over the years. If we consult the studies on the subject, we find four main views: planning, policy, process and practice. The planning view, born in the 1960s, represents the first approach to the subject, focusing on tools and techniques to support managers in making decisions about the direction of the business. In this sense, strategy can be seen as a rational activity of analysis and calculation. The political approach, on the other hand, believes that rational planning is ineffective, since the environment in which the organization is inserted is unpredictable and it is the environment that influences the adaptation and survival of companies, as if it were a process of natural selection. The process view of strategy, in turn, focuses on understanding organizational performance generally from a financial perspective, through the best use of resources by the processes adopted by the company.
Strategy as practice emerged in the 1990s, bringing a more social vision. In this context, strategy focuses on people and their interactions, actions and negotiations. This view understands that the competitive advantage of companies is people, since technologies and processes are increasingly easily copied. It also focuses on the importance of making strategy happen, giving rise to the term strategizingto refer to the relevance of action.
Looking at strategy with a focus on practice and people considers the following principles:
1) Strategy does not exist without implementation: We all know of cases where strategic planning has been brilliant and promising, but has not come to fruition or has not achieved the expected results. In most cases, the fault lies not in the planning, but in the execution and implementation, which can fail for a variety of reasons, such as lack of engagement, communication problems and undersized budgets. Developing a plan that takes into account implementation processes and operational risks is a key factor in achieving objectives.
2) The power is in the peopleAlthough most of the strategic decisions and directions are concentrated in the top management of companies (Board, CEO and C-Level), the execution is done by the teams, especially the other managers and the operational team. These are the people who will make most of the strategy happen, and they need to be engaged and have a clear understanding of what needs to be done. Otherwise, this team has the power to make the board's plan unfeasible, either because of a lack of clarity or because they don't believe in what is being proposed.
Middle managers deserve special mention in this process. Middle managers (also called middle management) are the people who have access to top management and lead at least one other manager. Why are they so important? Firstly, because their middle position guarantees the "bridge" between top management and the more junior and operational levels. This intermediate position generates the second factor, related to the transfer of knowledge between the various levels of the company: middle management has access to information, ideas and content from various sources such as operational groups, clients, other organizations and senior managers. Associated with this, the third reason is that middle management, being closer to the operation, has a greater understanding of the skills needed to perform their duties. The fourth reason: in companies with a lot of geographical dispersion, middle managers are the reference point for senior management in the units they lead.
3) Engagement is key: For strategy implementation to be successful, teams need to be engaged with the plan developed and see a purpose in it. This doesn't mean that teams won't work if they aren't engaged, but the results will certainly be better if people are genuinely interested.
In order to establish a purpose for the strategy, it is important to give it meaning, i.e. to make it clear to people why the plan is being developed, what opportunities will be worked on and what results are expected. In addition, what is expected of the teams involved and their importance to the success of the implementation must also be communicated. This process can be translated into three questions: "what is happening?", followed by "what does this mean?" and then "what will you do from now on?".
4) Communication must be efficient: If the implementation of the strategy depends on interaction between people and the creation of a purpose to generate engagement, communication is a fundamental part of this process. It is the way in which people explain their actions and the actions needed by the organization, encouraging teams to understand the strategy and how it should be implemented.
Effective communication needs to be constant, clear, transparent and consistent. Frequency is important to keep people informed and ensure that the implementation of the strategy is always on the teams' agenda. Results also need to be communicated frequently to give visibility to the progress of the actions taken. Clarity has the role of ensuring that people understand what needs to be done, without any doubts or fears.
Being transparent is another fundamental premise for efficient communication that generates engagement. Sharing objectives, results, even bad ones, and sharing failures and lessons learned generates credibility for teams and trust in what is being communicated. Along with transparency comes consistency: linear communication, without contradictions, helps to engage people. Even if the strategic direction needs to change, it won't be a problem if it is communicated clearly and transparently.
Looking at strategy with a focus on practice and people does not invalidate the other visions mentioned at the beginning of this article. In fact, they are all complementary: tools and techniques remain important, as do the external variables of the environment, the relevance of processes and a focus on financial results. All of them have people as protagonists and require implementation to make them happen.
