Choosing things implies “un-choosing” others. We voluntarily exclude a set of possibilities.
Company without a strategy
Company with a strategy
Some may be horrified at the idea of “turning down business” before fully exploring if we can make sufficient changes to be able to take it on but such exploration has a cost. Few companies have sustained success by “having a go at anything that crops up ”
Most people would accept that one aspect of strategy is to make choices – to decide what to do (and what not to do). Dave Aron in “The Essence of Strategy” has a section entitled “Strategy is about choice” which supports this thesis. Richard Rumelt says[1] “Strategy involves focus and, therefore, choice. And choice means setting aside some goals in favour of others. When this hard work is not done, weak amorphous strategy is the result.”[2]
One former colleague made the antithetical point that strategy should not be framed in terms of ‘either-or‘ (choices restricting degrees of freedom) but more in terms of ‘both-and’ (the purpose of strategy is to open up more choices).
In my experience, with finite resources and strong constraints, a degree of focus and choice is necessary, despite the allure of the possibility of unconstrained ‘both and‘ thinking.
My attempt at synthesis is that organisations need the structure, focus and discipline that comes from clear identity, vision (compelling description of a preferred alternative future), success criteria etc. Each of these involve taking a position that down-plays alternative positions. But increasingly the importance of agility of various kinds[3] means that such choices need to be held lightly and a degree of flexibility, pragmatism and opportunism is required.
Pursuing ‘both and‘ may be a viable approach to strategy in some areas but even pursuing that approach is itself a strategic choice (which will dilute the resources available for other approaches and in other areas).
Although I am sceptical of both and being a suitable overall basis for strategic planning, I recognise huge value in maintaining ‘both and‘ as a useful continual challenge and a protection against having a too narrow view of the options and possibilities (see Creating Options)
[1] Richard Rumelt, Good Strategy/ Bad Strategy, chapter 4
[2] A strong (good) strategy makes choices and distinctions and can be applied (see can be applied section of good enough strategy)
[3] See appendix discussing the need for a richer vocabulary for ‘agile’ , as too many concepts are described by the single word “agile” (to be completed)