Communicating strategy = communicating goals?

I often talk to practitioners about strategy process and strategy implementation. There is a peculiar misconception that I have encountered time and time again: strategy is being confused with a set of goals, oftentimes numeric goals; "My strategy is to increase the market share of my product in Finland by 5 % during the next year", etc.

While this may sound a bit surprising, as a goal is only the intended outcome of a strategy, not the strategy itself, I find this misconception surprisingly common. In particular, when strategy is discussed at lower echelons of the organization, the communication of strategy often equals the setting of a particular set of numeric goals.

My guess would be that the overwhelming popularity of the Balanced Scorecard has something to do with this phenomenon. The image of an organization, associated with the Balanced Scorecard is that of an intricate machine, controlled by a strategic code or a program:

“Imagine entering the cockpit of a modern airplane and seeing only one instrument there. How would you feel about boarding the plane after the following discussion with the pilot? [A dialogue with the pilot discussing the merits of using other instruments as well just as the existing speed meter should be used].” - Kaplan & Norton (1996: 1).

While it would be unfair to argue that Kaplan and Norton do not acknowledge that figuring out the ways in which the desired measures are aqcuired is important, the whole metaphor seems to urge managers to forget that the "how" question is at the core of the notion of strategy; "My goal is to increase the market share of my product in Finland by 5 % during the next year, and my strategy for reaching that goal is the following...".

The balanced scorecard trend has taken the original Harvard notion of strategic management being the job of a general manager, who is not to be disturbed by operational issues, and moved the same lack of concern for operations to the level of the people in charge of operations, as absurd as it might sound. Mintzber (1991: 22-23) criticizes the "helicopter view" at all levels of the organization:

“I wonder if anyone can get the true “big picture” by just seeing above. The forest looks just like a rug from a helicopter, and anyone who has taken a walk in the forest […] knows that forests don’t look much like that from the inside. Strategists do not understand much about forests if they stay in helicopters, nor much about organizations if they stay in head offices. […] Thus, strategic thinking is also inductive thinking: seeing above must be supported by seeing below.”

At its best, strategy implementation can not only help organizational performance, but also create commitment and meaning for operational work. The strategy=goal -confusion is particularly disturbing when communicating strategy top-down. At worst, operational employees are given the objectives without the strategy to reach them - all in the name of strategy. The following clip, where a big man comes from headquarters to preach the gospel to a number of salesmen is particularly telling.



"AIDA" and "ABC" don't have much going for them as strategies, do they?