A few weeks ago I blogged about what it means to “be more strategic.” Over the years I’ve known several ambitious colleagues who have received this feedback in performance reviews, and also not a few leaders who have given it. My observation is that there is usually very little substance beyond the initial directive, as if what it means to “be more strategic” should be obvious – and if the aspiring leader can’t figure out what it means, well, that’s just a barrier to his/her advancement.
That post focused on developing a strategic viewpoint using my definition of strategy, which is the intentional deployment of particular assets and capabilities to achieve desired results. The application of this definition to the particular circumstances the employee is operating in will provide a basis for strategic conversations and actions.
Since then I have had several great discussions with colleagues who found the direction to “be more strategic” similarly frustrating, both from the perspective of the recipient and the giver. So what follows are some additional observations for both, with a deeper appreciation that “being strategic” is a two-way street for the aspiring employee and the established leader.
For Recipients
As I wrote in my earlier blog, you can use particular words and phrases in the definition of strategy above to develop a strategic perspective on your company/functional group/role. But being “more strategic” usually involves some combination of the following:
- Higher levels of abstraction/more general perspective – Strategy is virtually always expressed in terms of patterns and trends rather than specific data points. You can research “Hayakawa’s Ladder of Abstraction” for more background on moving along the continuum from concrete/specific to abstract/general. (Pro tip: it is possible to become too abstract – nailing just the right level of generality is important.)
- A focus on change rather than continuity – We all know that change can be hard, but it is also the essence of strategy. Even if the company says it wants to “stay the course,” it must anticipate and thwart competitive threats, anticipate future developments, nurture its differentiating assets and capabilities, become more efficient, etc. Being strategic invariably involves defining and executing a change mandate.
- A focus on the future rather than the present – Building on the concept of change, strategy is always looking forward to a time when change is accomplished, new milestones can be reached, a new level of performance can be realized. Generally speaking (see what I did there?), companies break up “the future” into three time horizons – for simplicity’s sake, short-, medium-, and long-term – to make sure they have shared expectations about the timing and extent of change to be accomplished. “Being strategic” involves incorporating medium- and long-term perspectives into your thinking, planning, and actions.
Combine these three as your company specifically defines them, and you have the strategic “space” your leaders are likely asking you to occupy. Getting comfortable operating in this space can be challenging as there is much more ambiguity than in the “current operations” domain. But your senior leaders should provide support/encouragement (see below); you will likely have organizational peers who are in a similar position; and outside resources (both formal and informal) are available.
For the Givers
If you are giving performance reviews that direct employees to “become more strategic,” how do you elaborate on that and support the employee in this new aspect of his/her performance? As I suggested above, this should not fall solely on the employee side of the employment equation – it is a two-way street. Some considerations for more explicit guidance:
- How does senior leadership define, express, and practice strategy? How transparent are their practices and outputs? How can aspiring employees “draft” off and extend this work for the benefit of the company and their careers? If these are not well defined, it will be more difficult for the employee to succeed. Strategy is ultimately company-specific, so any shared agreements among leadership – even as basic as how you define short-, medium-, and long-term time frames – should be transparent to your aspiring leaders.
- What balance of strategic and operational focus is necessary and appropriate for this employee? (How much more strategic do you want them to be? Does it mean being “less operational”?) If this person leads a team, what will be the downstream impact of the leader becoming more strategic on them?
- How well-aligned and consistent are leaders from various functional areas in defining performance around strategic orientation? For instance, if your Chief Revenue Officer and Chief Financial Officer are both telling their respective lieutenants to be more strategic, how “in synch” will the resulting behaviors be? Is there HR support and a programmatic to strategy and leadership?
- For left-brained, detail-oriented, concrete thinkers who have succeeded in operational environments, is there some form of support to help them shift gears into a more strategic orientation? What is the career path for those who cannot or do not wish to operate in the strategic domain?
- Are incentives aligned with the strategic directive? How would “being more strategic” be reflected in higher variable compensation or other benefits to the employee?
I don’t mean to over-complicate things, but it seems to me that telling someone to be more strategic without further elaboration and support is some combination of naïve, lazy, and disingenuous. Accounting for the considerations above would at least take naivete out of the equation. If the giver and the broader organization are sincere in providing this direction, then they should also recognize their part in meeting the employee in the realm of strategy – hence the two-way street metaphor.
Have you ever been told to be more strategic? Was it presented as a two-way street? What additional guidance and support were you given? Please offer your perspective in the comments.
Strategy, Creativity, and Leadership 