Discussion: View Thread

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Definition of Strategy

  • 1.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-25-2009 10:41
    I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a succinct definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:

    "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an objective."

    Now for some elaboration: Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap between ends and means. Both are concerned with courses of action, with getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and tactics informs strategy as to reality. As von Moltke observed, "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." And, of course, strategy and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns differ. Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and tactics is concerned with their "employment."

    As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action, some the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with; some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well. Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that is chiseled in stone. The same is true of tactics.

    One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics. Consider the following definition of tactics:

    "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a strategy."


    For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings." If you care to read it, go to www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.

    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim didn''t ask
    > about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning to craft
    > strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get there
    > (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring


  • 2.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-25-2009 12:25
    Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a rather
    fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are not
    prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.

    Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was first
    posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate the
    essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    viscerally (aka' deep learning).

    Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way
    of being.
    Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.

    Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was 'hit
    them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them (with
    variety).'

    On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to
    'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    ahead in goals scored.

    In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because he
    could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than
    could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    even though his top speed was a little lower than others. This allocation
    of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way of
    being during the course of action.

    The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic
    way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.

    What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment
    for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?

    cheers,
    Jack Ring

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <nickols@att.net>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    Subject: Definition of Strategy


    >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a succinct
    >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    >
    > "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an
    > objective."
    >
    > Now for some elaboration: Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap
    > between ends and means. Both are concerned with courses of action, with
    > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > tactics informs strategy as to reality. As von Moltke observed, "No
    > battle plan survives contact with the enemy." And, of course, strategy
    > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > differ. Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    >
    > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action, some
    > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;
    > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that is
    > chiseled in stone. The same is true of tactics.
    >
    > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    >
    > "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > strategy."
    >
    >
    > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings." If you care to read it, go to
    > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Fred Nickols
    > Managing Partner
    > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > nickols@att.net
    > www.nickols.us
    >
    > "Assistance at A Distance"
    >
    > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >>
    >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim didn''t
    >> ask
    >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning to
    >> craft
    >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get
    >> there
    >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    >> Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the response.
    >> cheers,
    >> Jack Ring
    >


  • 3.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-25-2009 16:17
    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics. There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way
    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was 'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of action." They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then leapfrog back to the West Coast." That strategy tied to 1974 and my retirement from the Navy. My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720 per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible. Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries) were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast. So, I envisioned a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary. The strategy worked as envisioned - to a point. I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to Bethesda, MD. Once there, however, things changed. I fell in love with the East Coast. Business was good, I was making more money than I ever imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California.

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in excruciating detail to quality as such. Nor does a plan have to fill several three-ring binders to qualify as such. When I head out to Office Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a plan. I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper. I have some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the paper. Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and meanings. So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the same for plans and planning. By golly, I think I will. For starters: A plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions intended to achieve the goal(s). It doesn't even have to be written down. Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and evaluations are all optional. It all depends on the scope and scale of the effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post: The paper on strategy, its definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a few months. It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the copyright notice whenever I do that. But, the basic paper has been out there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to
    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than
    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others. This allocation
    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic
    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment
    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > > "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an
    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration: Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap
    > > between ends and means. Both are concerned with courses of action, with
    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality. As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy." And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ. Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action, some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;
    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that is
    > > chiseled in stone. The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > > "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings." If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get
    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >


  • 4.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-25-2009 16:35
    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action." They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast." That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy. My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast. So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary. The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point. I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD. Once there, however, things changed. I fell in love with the
    East Coast. Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California.

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such. Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such. When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan. I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper. I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper. Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings. So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning. By golly, I think I will. For starters: A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s). It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional. It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post: The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months. It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that. But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others. This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > > "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration: Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means. Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality. As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy." And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ. Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone. The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > > "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings." If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >


  • 5.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-25-2009 18:28
    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action." They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast." That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy. My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast. So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary. The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point. I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD. Once there, however, things changed. I fell in love with the
    East Coast. Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California.

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such. Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such. When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan. I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper. I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper. Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings. So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning. By golly, I think I will. For starters: A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s). It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional. It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post: The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months. It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that. But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others. This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > > "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration: Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means. Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality. As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy." And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ. Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone. The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > > "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings." If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >


  • 6.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-25-2009 23:01
    Fred's minor correction is unnecessary. He says "a few years" whereas I
    actually wrote "several months ago." I did not write "few" months. The error
    is in his attribution.

    Hit them where they are strongest is not a COURSE of action. It is an END,
    not a MEANS. Likewise there is no Course in "confuse them (with variety),
    also an END, not a MEANS.

    Enough.

    Jack Ring


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <nickols@att.net>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:16 PM
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy


    > Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    > There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    > attention.
    >
    > Jack writes in part:
    >
    >> Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a
    >> way
    >> of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >>
    >> Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    >> Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    >> 'hit
    >> them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    >> (with
    >> variety).'
    >
    > The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses
    > of action." They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    > specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I
    > view them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    > strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    > "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).
    >
    > Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    > leapfrog back to the West Coast." That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    > retirement from the Navy. My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was
    > $720 per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as
    > possible. Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living
    > (and salaries) were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.
    > So, I envisioned a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements
    > moving from West to East that would enable me to make my way to the East
    > Coast and once there moving all the way back to California (at the same
    > salary), thus ratcheting up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary.
    > The strategy worked as envisioned - to a point. I went from San Diego to
    > Evanston, Illinois to Bethesda, MD. Once there, however, things changed.
    > I fell in love with the East Coast. Business was good, I was making more
    > money than I ever imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to
    > California.
    >
    > My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    > excruciating detail to quality as such. Nor does a plan have to fill
    > several three-ring binders to qualify as such. When I head out to Office
    > Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following
    > a plan. I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper. I
    > have some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples,
    > purchasing the paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning
    > home with the paper. Mission accomplished.
    >
    > Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    > meanings. So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do
    > the same for plans and planning. By golly, I think I will. For starters:
    > A plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    > intended to achieve the goal(s). It doesn't even have to be written down.
    > Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    > evaluations are all optional. It all depends on the scope and scale of
    > the effort.
    >
    > Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post: The paper on strategy, its
    > definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not
    > a few months. It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update
    > the copyright notice whenever I do that. But, the basic paper has been
    > out there a while.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Fred Nickols
    > Managing Partner
    > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > nickols@att.net
    > www.nickols.us
    >
    > "Assistance at A Distance"
    >
    > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >>
    >> Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    >> rather
    >> fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    >> not
    >> prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >>
    >> Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    >> first
    >> posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    >> the
    >> essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    >> viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >>
    >>
    >> On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal'
    >> to
    >> 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    >> ahead in goals scored.
    >>
    >> In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    >> RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    >> he
    >> could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time
    >> than
    >> could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    >> race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    >> even though his top speed was a little lower than others. This
    >> allocation
    >> of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    >> of
    >> being during the course of action.
    >>
    >> The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    >> which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    >> being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the
    >> chaordic
    >> way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into
    >> Doing.
    >>
    >> What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning
    >> environment
    >> for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >>
    >> cheers,
    >> Jack Ring
    >>
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> From: <nickols@att.net>
    >> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    >> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    >> Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >>
    >>
    >> >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    >> >succinct
    >> >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    >> >
    >> > "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize
    >> > an
    >> > objective."
    >> >
    >> > Now for some elaboration: Together, strategy and tactics bridge the
    >> > gap
    >> > between ends and means. Both are concerned with courses of action,
    >> > with
    >> > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    >> > tactics informs strategy as to reality. As von Moltke observed, "No
    >> > battle plan survives contact with the enemy." And, of course, strategy
    >> > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    >> > differ. Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    >> > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    >> >
    >> > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    >> > some
    >> > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt
    >> > with;
    >> > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    >> > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    >> > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    >> > is
    >> > chiseled in stone. The same is true of tactics.
    >> >
    >> > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    >> > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    >> >
    >> > "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    >> > strategy."
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    >> > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings." If you care to read it, go to
    >> > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    >> >
    >> > --
    >> > Regards,
    >> >
    >> > Fred Nickols
    >> > Managing Partner
    >> > Distance Consulting, LLC
    >> > nickols@att.net
    >> > www.nickols.us
    >> >
    >> > "Assistance at A Distance"
    >> >
    >> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    >> > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >> >>
    >> >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    >> >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    >> >> didn''t
    >> >> ask
    >> >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    >> >> to
    >> >> craft
    >> >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to
    >> >> get
    >> >> there
    >> >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    >> >> Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the response.
    >> >> cheers,
    >> >> Jack Ring
    >> >
    >


  • 7.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-25-2009 23:40
    Thanks for joining in. May I ask what level of competency as strategists do
    your students achieve?
    Do you know Erwin Duurland, Future Reality, eduurland@gmail.com ?
    Onward,
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Joop Remme" <jhmremme@PLANET.NL>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:35 PM
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy


    > Dear colleagues,
    >
    > Allow me to contribute my two cents.
    >
    > In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    > 1) where are we?
    > 2) where do we want to go?
    > 3) how are we going to get there?
    >
    > You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is
    > my
    > impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    > fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.
    >
    > Of course, I welcome all comments.
    >
    > Best regards,
    >
    > Joop Remmé
    > remme@knowdialogue.nl
    > remme@msm.nl
    > www.knowdialogue.nl
    > www.synmind.nl
    > www.msm.nl
    >
    > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    > Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    > Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    > Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy
    >
    > Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    > There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    > attention.
    >
    > Jack writes in part:
    >
    >> Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a
    >> way
    >
    >> of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >>
    >> Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    >> Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    > 'hit
    >> them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    > (with
    >> variety).'
    >
    > The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses
    > of
    > action." They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    > specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I
    > view
    > them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    > strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    > "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).
    >
    > Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    > leapfrog back to the West Coast." That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    > retirement from the Navy. My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was
    > $720
    > per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as
    > possible.
    > Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    > were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast. So, I
    > envisioned
    > a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    > East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    > moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus
    > ratcheting
    > up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary. The strategy worked as
    > envisioned - to a point. I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    > Bethesda, MD. Once there, however, things changed. I fell in love with
    > the
    > East Coast. Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    > imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California.
    >
    > My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    > excruciating detail to quality as such. Nor does a plan have to fill
    > several three-ring binders to qualify as such. When I head out to Office
    > Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following
    > a
    > plan. I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper. I
    > have
    > some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing
    > the
    > paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    > paper. Mission accomplished.
    >
    > Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    > meanings. So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do
    > the
    > same for plans and planning. By golly, I think I will. For starters: A
    > plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    > intended to achieve the goal(s). It doesn't even have to be written down.
    > Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    > evaluations are all optional. It all depends on the scope and scale of
    > the
    > effort.
    >
    > Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post: The paper on strategy, its
    > definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not
    > a
    > few months. It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    > copyright notice whenever I do that. But, the basic paper has been out
    > there a while.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Fred Nickols
    > Managing Partner
    > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > nickols@att.net
    > www.nickols.us
    >
    > "Assistance at A Distance"
    >
    > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >>
    >> Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    > rather
    >> fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    > not
    >> prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >>
    >> Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    > first
    >> posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    > the
    >> essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    >> viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >>
    >>
    >> On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal'
    >> to
    >
    >> 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    >> ahead in goals scored.
    >>
    >> In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    >> RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    > he
    >> could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time
    >> than
    >
    >> could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    >> race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    >> even though his top speed was a little lower than others. This
    >> allocation
    >
    >> of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    > of
    >> being during the course of action.
    >>
    >> The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    >> which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    >> being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the
    >> chaordic
    >
    >> way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into
    >> Doing.
    >>
    >> What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning
    >> environment
    >
    >> for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >>
    >> cheers,
    >> Jack Ring
    >>
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> From: <nickols@att.net>
    >> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    >> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    >> Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >>
    >>
    >> >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    > succinct
    >> >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    >> >
    >> > "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize
    >> > an
    >
    >> > objective."
    >> >
    >> > Now for some elaboration: Together, strategy and tactics bridge the
    >> > gap
    >
    >> > between ends and means. Both are concerned with courses of action,
    >> > with
    >
    >> > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    >> > tactics informs strategy as to reality. As von Moltke observed, "No
    >> > battle plan survives contact with the enemy." And, of course, strategy
    >> > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    >> > differ. Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    >> > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    >> >
    >> > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    > some
    >> > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt
    >> > with;
    >
    >> > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    >> > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    >> > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    > is
    >> > chiseled in stone. The same is true of tactics.
    >> >
    >> > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    >> > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    >> >
    >> > "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    >> > strategy."
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    >> > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings." If you care to read it, go to
    >> > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    >> >
    >> > --
    >> > Regards,
    >> >
    >> > Fred Nickols
    >> > Managing Partner
    >> > Distance Consulting, LLC
    >> > nickols@att.net
    >> > www.nickols.us
    >> >
    >> > "Assistance at A Distance"
    >> >
    >> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    >> > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >> >>
    >> >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    >> >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    > didn''t
    >> >> ask
    >> >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    > to
    >> >> craft
    >> >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to
    >> >> get
    >
    >> >> there
    >> >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    >> >> Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the response.
    >> >> cheers,
    >> >> Jack Ring
    >> >
    >


  • 8.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-26-2009 06:09
    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some may show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action." They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast." That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy. My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast. So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary. The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point. I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD. Once there, however, things changed. I fell in love with the
    East Coast. Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California.

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such. Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such. When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan. I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper. I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper. Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings. So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning. By golly, I think I will. For starters: A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s). It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional. It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post: The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months. It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that. But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others. This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > > "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration: Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means. Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality. As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy." And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ. Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone. The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > > "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings." If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >


  • 9.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-26-2009 06:22
    Dear Jack,

    My students are in An MBA program. That means that they do not typically
    become strategy specialists, but reach the competency in strategy that can
    be expected of MB A's according to international standards.

    I do not know Erwin Duurland. Why do you ask?

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Jack Ring
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 5:40
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Thanks for joining in. May I ask what level of competency as strategists do
    your students achieve?
    Do you know Erwin Duurland, Future Reality, eduurland@gmail.com ?
    Onward,
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Joop Remme" <jhmremme@PLANET.NL>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:35 PM
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy


    > Dear colleagues,
    >
    > Allow me to contribute my two cents.
    >
    > In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    > 1) where are we?
    > 2) where do we want to go?
    > 3) how are we going to get there?
    >
    > You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is
    > my
    > impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    > fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.
    >
    > Of course, I welcome all comments.
    >
    > Best regards,
    >
    > Joop Remmé
    > remme@knowdialogue.nl
    > remme@msm.nl
    > www.knowdialogue.nl
    > www.synmind.nl
    > www.msm.nl
    >
    > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    > Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    > Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    > Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy
    >
    > Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    > There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    > attention.
    >
    > Jack writes in part:
    >
    >> Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a
    >> way
    >
    >> of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >>
    >> Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    >> Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    > 'hit
    >> them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    > (with
    >> variety).'
    >
    > The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses
    > of
    > action." They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    > specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I
    > view
    > them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    > strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    > "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).
    >
    > Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    > leapfrog back to the West Coast." That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    > retirement from the Navy. My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was
    > $720
    > per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as
    > possible.
    > Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    > were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast. So, I
    > envisioned
    > a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    > East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    > moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus
    > ratcheting
    > up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary. The strategy worked as
    > envisioned - to a point. I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    > Bethesda, MD. Once there, however, things changed. I fell in love with
    > the
    > East Coast. Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    > imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California.
    >
    > My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    > excruciating detail to quality as such. Nor does a plan have to fill
    > several three-ring binders to qualify as such. When I head out to Office
    > Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following

    > a
    > plan. I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper. I
    > have
    > some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing
    > the
    > paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    > paper. Mission accomplished.
    >
    > Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    > meanings. So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do
    > the
    > same for plans and planning. By golly, I think I will. For starters: A
    > plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    > intended to achieve the goal(s). It doesn't even have to be written down.
    > Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    > evaluations are all optional. It all depends on the scope and scale of
    > the
    > effort.
    >
    > Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post: The paper on strategy, its
    > definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not

    > a
    > few months. It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    > copyright notice whenever I do that. But, the basic paper has been out
    > there a while.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Fred Nickols
    > Managing Partner
    > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > nickols@att.net
    > www.nickols.us
    >
    > "Assistance at A Distance"
    >
    > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >>
    >> Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    > rather
    >> fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    > not
    >> prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >>
    >> Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    > first
    >> posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    > the
    >> essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    >> viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >>
    >>
    >> On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal'
    >> to
    >
    >> 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    >> ahead in goals scored.
    >>
    >> In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    >> RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    > he
    >> could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time
    >> than
    >
    >> could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    >> race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    >> even though his top speed was a little lower than others. This
    >> allocation
    >
    >> of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    > of
    >> being during the course of action.
    >>
    >> The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    >> which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    >> being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the
    >> chaordic
    >
    >> way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into
    >> Doing.
    >>
    >> What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning
    >> environment
    >
    >> for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >>
    >> cheers,
    >> Jack Ring
    >>
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> From: <nickols@att.net>
    >> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    >> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    >> Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >>
    >>
    >> >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    > succinct
    >> >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    >> >
    >> > "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize
    >> > an
    >
    >> > objective."
    >> >
    >> > Now for some elaboration: Together, strategy and tactics bridge the
    >> > gap
    >
    >> > between ends and means. Both are concerned with courses of action,
    >> > with
    >
    >> > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    >> > tactics informs strategy as to reality. As von Moltke observed, "No
    >> > battle plan survives contact with the enemy." And, of course, strategy
    >> > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    >> > differ. Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    >> > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    >> >
    >> > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    > some
    >> > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt
    >> > with;
    >
    >> > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    >> > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    >> > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    > is
    >> > chiseled in stone. The same is true of tactics.
    >> >
    >> > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    >> > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    >> >
    >> > "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    >> > strategy."
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    >> > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings." If you care to read it, go to
    >> > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    >> >
    >> > --
    >> > Regards,
    >> >
    >> > Fred Nickols
    >> > Managing Partner
    >> > Distance Consulting, LLC
    >> > nickols@att.net
    >> > www.nickols.us
    >> >
    >> > "Assistance at A Distance"
    >> >
    >> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    >> > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >> >>
    >> >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    >> >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    > didn''t
    >> >> ask
    >> >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    > to
    >> >> craft
    >> >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to
    >> >> get
    >
    >> >> there
    >> >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    >> >> Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the response.
    >> >> cheers,
    >> >> Jack Ring
    >> >
    >


  • 10.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-26-2009 12:44
    Regarding the characterization of "hit them where they are strongest" and "confuse them with variety" being ENDS, rather than MEANS, it helps to remember that the whole purpose of an engagement between two football teams (i.e., the game being played) is to WIN THE GAME.
     
    Thus, WINNING is the END that is desired (what each coach really wanted to achieve), so "hitting them where they are strongest" and "confusing with variety" would, in fact be MEANS to this end, not the end itself.
     
    (this may not be true recently, where hard hitting seems to be an END in and of itself in NFL football - at least from some players' perspectives)
     

     
    Prof. John Stephan
    355 Dyson Center
    School of Management
    Marist College
    Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
    (tel) 845-575-3000 x2916
    ______________________
    Spring 2009 Office hours:

    Tue. 3:30-6pm
    Thu. 12:30-2:30pm
    Fri. 12pm-1:30
    and by appointment

    -----Management Education and Development Discussion <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU> wrote: -----

    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    Sent by: Management Education and Development Discussion <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Date: 02/25/2009 11:00PM
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Fred's minor correction is unnecessary. He says "a few years" whereas I
    actually wrote "several months ago." I did not write "few" months. The error
    is in his attribution.

    Hit them where they are strongest is not a COURSE of action. It is an END,
    not a MEANS.  Likewise there is no Course in "confuse them (with variety),
    also an END, not a MEANS.

    Enough.

    Jack Ring


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <nickols@att.net>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:16 PM
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy


    > Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    > There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    > attention.
    >
    > Jack writes in part:
    >
    >> Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a
    >> way
    >> of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >>
    >> Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    >> Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    >> 'hit
    >> them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    >> (with
    >> variety).'
    >
    > The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses
    > of action."  They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    > specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I
    > view them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    > strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    > "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).
    >
    > Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    > leapfrog back to the West Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    > retirement from the Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was
    > $720 per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as
    > possible.  Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living
    > (and salaries) were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.
    > So, I envisioned a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements
    > moving from West to East that would enable me to make my way to the East
    > Coast and once there moving all the way back to California (at the same
    > salary), thus ratcheting up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary.
    > The strategy worked as envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to
    > Evanston, Illinois to Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.
    > I fell in love with the East Coast.  Business was good, I was making more
    > money than I ever imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to
    > California.
    >
    > My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    > excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does a plan have to fill
    > several three-ring binders to qualify as such.  When I head out to Office
    > Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following
    > a plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper.  I
    > have some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples,
    > purchasing the paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning
    > home with the paper.  Mission accomplished.
    >
    > Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    > meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do
    > the same for plans and planning.  By golly, I think I will.  For starters:
    > A plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    > intended to achieve the goal(s).  It doesn't even have to be written down.
    > Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    > evaluations are all optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of
    > the effort.
    >
    > Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The paper on strategy, its
    > definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not
    > a few months.  It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update
    > the copyright notice whenever I do that.  But, the basic paper has been
    > out there a while.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Fred Nickols
    > Managing Partner
    > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > nickols@att.net
    > www.nickols.us
    >
    > "Assistance at A Distance"
    >
    > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >>
    >> Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    >> rather
    >> fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    >> not
    >> prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >>
    >> Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    >> first
    >> posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    >> the
    >> essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    >> viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >>
    >>
    >> On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal'
    >> to
    >> 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    >> ahead in goals scored.
    >>
    >> In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    >> RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    >> he
    >> could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time
    >> than
    >> could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    >> race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    >> even though his top speed was a little lower than others.  This
    >> allocation
    >> of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    >> of
    >> being during the course of action.
    >>
    >> The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    >> which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    >> being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the
    >> chaordic
    >> way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into
    >> Doing.
    >>
    >> What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning
    >> environment
    >> for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >>
    >> cheers,
    >> Jack Ring
    >>
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> From: <nickols@att.net>
    >> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    >> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    >> Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >>
    >>
    >> >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    >> >succinct
    >> >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    >> >
    >> >           "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize
    >> > an
    >> > objective."
    >> >
    >> > Now for some elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the
    >> > gap
    >> > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action,
    >> > with
    >> > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    >> > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As von Moltke observed, "No
    >> > battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  And, of course, strategy
    >> > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    >> > differ.  Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    >> > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    >> >
    >> > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    >> > some
    >> > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt
    >> > with;
    >> > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    >> > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    >> > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    >> > is
    >> > chiseled in stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    >> >
    >> > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    >> > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    >> >
    >> >         "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    >> > strategy."
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    >> > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to
    >> > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    >> >
    >> > --
    >> > Regards,
    >> >
    >> > Fred Nickols
    >> > Managing Partner
    >> > Distance Consulting, LLC
    >> > nickols@att.net
    >> > www.nickols.us
    >> >
    >> > "Assistance at A Distance"
    >> >
    >> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    >> > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >> >>
    >> >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    >> >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    >> >> didn''t
    >> >> ask
    >> >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    >> >> to
    >> >> craft
    >> >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to
    >> >> get
    >> >> there
    >> >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    >> >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    >> >> cheers,
    >> >> Jack Ring
    >> >
    >



  • 11.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-26-2009 15:17
    Surely the OBJECTIVE is Winning the Game. An End.
    The naive will then start to nominate courses of action, e.g. let's run play 45 Right, etc.
    The prudent will ask, "What are the Impediments and what state (end) do we have to bring them to in order to achieve the objective?" Then ask, "What resources or capabilities are likely to achieve bring the impediment to that state (END)?" In this example, hitting them WHERE they are strongest is a statement of location, not a course of action. That location will change from play to play. Similarly, Confuse them means to achieve a state of [their] confusion, and END. How to go about confusing them (e.g., constant movement by the linebackers) is a course of action.
    The main message to students is that strategy is better thought out as a set of consistent intended system states, BEFORE hypothesizing what it will take to achieve the state.
    A small distinction with a LARGE outcome.
    That's why PERT featured planning from right to left whereas CPM reversed the approach (and enabled many more failed projects).
     
    Onward,
    Jack
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:43 AM
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Regarding the characterization of "hit them where they are strongest" and "confuse them with variety" being ENDS, rather than MEANS, it helps to remember that the whole purpose of an engagement between two football teams (i.e., the game being played) is to WIN THE GAME.
     
    Thus, WINNING is the END that is desired (what each coach really wanted to achieve), so "hitting them where they are strongest" and "confusing with variety" would, in fact be MEANS to this end, not the end itself.
     
    (this may not be true recently, where hard hitting seems to be an END in and of itself in NFL football - at least from some players' perspectives)
     

     
    Prof. John Stephan
    355 Dyson Center
    School of Management
    Marist College
    Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
    (tel) 845-575-3000 x2916
    ______________________
    Spring 2009 Office hours:

    Tue. 3:30-6pm
    Thu. 12:30-2:30pm
    Fri. 12pm-1:30
    and by appointment

    -----Management Education and Development Discussion <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU> wrote: -----
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    Sent by: Management Education and Development Discussion <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Date: 02/25/2009 11:00PM
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Fred's minor correction is unnecessary. He says "a few years" whereas I
    actually wrote "several months ago." I did not write "few" months. The error
    is in his attribution.

    Hit them where they are strongest is not a COURSE of action. It is an END,
    not a MEANS.  Likewise there is no Course in "confuse them (with variety),
    also an END, not a MEANS.

    Enough.

    Jack Ring


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <nickols@att.net>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:16 PM
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy


    > Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    > There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    > attention.
    >
    > Jack writes in part:
    >
    >> Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a
    >> way
    >> of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >>
    >> Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    >> Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    >> 'hit
    >> them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    >> (with
    >> variety).'
    >
    > The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses
    > of action."  They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    > specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I
    > view them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    > strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    > "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).
    >
    > Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    > leapfrog back to the West Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    > retirement from the Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was
    > $720 per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as
    > possible.  Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living
    > (and salaries) were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.
    > So, I envisioned a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements
    > moving from West to East that would enable me to make my way to the East
    > Coast and once there moving all the way back to California (at the same
    > salary), thus ratcheting up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary.
    > The strategy worked as envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to
    > Evanston, Illinois to Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.
    > I fell in love with the East Coast.  Business was good, I was making more
    > money than I ever imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to
    > California.
    >
    > My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    > excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does a plan have to fill
    > several three-ring binders to qualify as such.  When I head out to Office
    > Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following
    > a plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper.  I
    > have some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples,
    > purchasing the paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning
    > home with the paper.  Mission accomplished.
    >
    > Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    > meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do
    > the same for plans and planning.  By golly, I think I will.  For starters:
    > A plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    > intended to achieve the goal(s).  It doesn't even have to be written down.
    > Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    > evaluations are all optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of
    > the effort.
    >
    > Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The paper on strategy, its
    > definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not
    > a few months.  It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update
    > the copyright notice whenever I do that.  But, the basic paper has been
    > out there a while.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Fred Nickols
    > Managing Partner
    > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > nickols@att.net
    > www.nickols.us
    >
    > "Assistance at A Distance"
    >
    > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >>
    >> Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    >> rather
    >> fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    >> not
    >> prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >>
    >> Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    >> first
    >> posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    >> the
    >> essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    >> viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >>
    >>
    >> On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal'
    >> to
    >> 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    >> ahead in goals scored.
    >>
    >> In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    >> RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    >> he
    >> could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time
    >> than
    >> could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    >> race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    >> even though his top speed was a little lower than others.  This
    >> allocation
    >> of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    >> of
    >> being during the course of action.
    >>
    >> The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    >> which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    >> being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the
    >> chaordic
    >> way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into
    >> Doing.
    >>
    >> What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning
    >> environment
    >> for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >>
    >> cheers,
    >> Jack Ring
    >>
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> From: <nickols@att.net>
    >> To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    >> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    >> Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >>
    >>
    >> >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    >> >succinct
    >> >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    >> >
    >> >           "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize
    >> > an
    >> > objective."
    >> >
    >> > Now for some elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the
    >> > gap
    >> > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action,
    >> > with
    >> > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    >> > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As von Moltke observed, "No
    >> > battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  And, of course, strategy
    >> > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    >> > differ.  Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    >> > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    >> >
    >> > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    >> > some
    >> > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt
    >> > with;
    >> > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    >> > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    >> > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    >> > is
    >> > chiseled in stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    >> >
    >> > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    >> > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    >> >
    >> >         "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    >> > strategy."
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    >> > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to
    >> > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    >> >
    >> > --
    >> > Regards,
    >> >
    >> > Fred Nickols
    >> > Managing Partner
    >> > Distance Consulting, LLC
    >> > nickols@att.net
    >> > www.nickols.us
    >> >
    >> > "Assistance at A Distance"
    >> >
    >> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    >> > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >> >>
    >> >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    >> >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    >> >> didn''t
    >> >> ask
    >> >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    >> >> to
    >> >> craft
    >> >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to
    >> >> get
    >> >> there
    >> >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    >> >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    >> >> cheers,
    >> >> Jack Ring
    >> >
    >



  • 12.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-27-2009 10:12
    I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments. It seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably intertwined. We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic Change." I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings from the peanut gallery,

    Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
    Tel: 434 924 7488 Fax: 434 243 7680
    Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some may show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action." They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast." That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy. My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast. So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary. The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point. I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD. Once there, however, things changed. I fell in love with the
    East Coast. Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California.

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such. Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such. When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan. I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper. I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper. Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings. So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning. By golly, I think I will. For starters: A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s). It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional. It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post: The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months. It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that. But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others. This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > > "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration: Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means. Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality. As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy." And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ. Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone. The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > > "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings." If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >


  • 13.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-27-2009 10:20
    Good morning!

    Jack Ring: Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    Tenets are principles... part of "who we are and want to become."
    Not strategies.

    Joop Remmé: Strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?
    I haven't worked on #1. My paradigm has started with #2. I will rethink my
    Science of Strategy, then build new options into my toolkits for #1.
    Thank you so much!!!

    Dundar Kocaoglu
    "We develop strategy to design a future to our liking."
    That is a remarkable parallel to John Kao's definition of innovation in
    Innovation Nation.
    "(Innovation is) the ability of individuals, companies, and entire
    nations to continuously create their desired future."

    Joop Remmé:
    "Some people treat leadership as grooming a savior."
    I see a culture of ego in industry in which both leader and boards who
    hire are looking for precisely a savior. I'm letting my decades long
    subscription to Fortune because so much content puts CEOs on pedestals..

    Best to all,

    Gary


    ...........................................
    Gary Lundquist
    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources*for Innovation
    303-840-9929*
    ...........................................
    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com
    Innovation of Business and
    the Business of Innovation™


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy


    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership. I
    am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that some
    people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these troubled
    times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has to mean
    that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit some may
    show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes partly a
    matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective future or be
    the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET Portland State University, Portland, Oregon,
    97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics. There
    is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a
    > way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action." They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast." That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy. My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast. So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary. The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point. I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD. Once there, however, things changed. I fell in love with the
    East Coast. Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California.

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such. Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such. When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan. I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper. I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper. Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings. So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning. By golly, I think I will. For starters: A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s). It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional. It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post: The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months. It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that. But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students
    > are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to
    > communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score
    > goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team
    > is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at
    > peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time
    > than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences
    > per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others. This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a
    > way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles
    > by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into
    > Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning
    > environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > > "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to
    > > realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration: Together, strategy and tactics bridge the
    > > gap

    > > between ends and means. Both are concerned with courses of action,
    > > with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics
    > > and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality. As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy." And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ. Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt
    > > with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone. The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and
    > > tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > > "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site
    > > titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings." If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about
    > >> learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to
    > >> get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >


  • 14.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-27-2009 16:17
    "Clawson, Jim" <ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU> 02/27/09 10:12 AM wrote
    I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments. It seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably intertwined. We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic Change." I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.
    Musings from the peanut gallery,
    Jim

    Great musings, Jim.

    In fact, in teaching my master's course titled "Strategic Leadership", I used Kotter's book "Leading change as the backbone for the course. This despite the fact I assess Kotter's book to be more about managing change processes than leading them. (Why would be for another, much longer delineation). To balance that, I used Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation by Kees van der Heijden as I felt this book successfully argued that scenario-based conversations and/or processes is a great process for effecting strategic leadership.

    In my younger days, I promoted leadership over management - placed them in opposition to each other with a one or the other resolution of that conflict. However, since being introduced to a model developed by Dr. Jeff Miller and presented at an Association of Leadership Educators conference, in which he portrayed management and leadership as two domains in a Venn Diagram, I have promoted the idea that to be successful, one has to have BOTH leadership AND management.

    In my mind, management provides needed structure for systemic stability while leadership encourages expression of free will needed to effect human-based organizational behavior to the effect of competitive advantage. Along those lines, strong management is needed to provide structure-based (non-human system elements) competitive advantage, in my opinion.

    Kind wishes

    Ed
    Drive On!




    Retired Faculty
    Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Department
    University of Central Florida


    407-588-1177


  • 15.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-27-2009 16:42
    Ed: Your description of the necessary balance of management and
    leadership is elaborated very well in Rowe, W. G. 2001. Creating Wealth
    in Organizations: The Role of Strategic Leadership. The Academy of
    Management Executive, 15(1), 81-94.

    --Charlie

    Charles M. Vance, Ph.D.
    College of Business Administration
    Loyola Marymount University
    1 LMU Drive, MS 8385
    Los Angeles, CA 90045-2659
    Phone: 310-338-4508
    FAX: 310-338-3000
    cvance@lmu.edu


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Edward Hampton
    Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 1:17 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    "Clawson, Jim" <ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU> 02/27/09 10:12 AM wrote
    I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments. It
    seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are
    inextricably intertwined. We may break it/them down into pieces for the
    sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer
    the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and
    since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing
    change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately
    titled "Leading Strategic Change." I believe they are overlapping Venn
    diagrams.
    Musings from the peanut gallery,
    Jim

    Great musings, Jim.

    In fact, in teaching my master's course titled "Strategic Leadership", I
    used Kotter's book "Leading change as the backbone for the course. This
    despite the fact I assess Kotter's book to be more about managing change
    processes than leading them. (Why would be for another, much longer
    delineation). To balance that, I used Scenarios: The Art of Strategic
    Conversation by Kees van der Heijden as I felt this book successfully
    argued that scenario-based conversations and/or processes is a great
    process for effecting strategic leadership.

    In my younger days, I promoted leadership over management - placed them
    in opposition to each other with a one or the other resolution of that
    conflict. However, since being introduced to a model developed by Dr.
    Jeff Miller and presented at an Association of Leadership Educators
    conference, in which he portrayed management and leadership as two
    domains in a Venn Diagram, I have promoted the idea that to be
    successful, one has to have BOTH leadership AND management.

    In my mind, management provides needed structure for systemic stability
    while leadership encourages expression of free will needed to effect
    human-based organizational behavior to the effect of competitive
    advantage. Along those lines, strong management is needed to provide
    structure-based (non-human system elements) competitive advantage, in my
    opinion.

    Kind wishes

    Ed
    Drive On!




    Retired Faculty
    Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Department
    University of Central Florida


    407-588-1177


  • 16.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-28-2009 06:05
    Colleagues,

    Ed Hampton: leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably
    intertwined.

    You will remember, Ed, the long dialog on Leadership that I initiated on
    this listserve in 2002. My summary statement at that time was that "All
    leadership is change leadership."

    An old quote (Levitt? Drucker?) says: "Leadership is doing the right
    things. Management is doing things right."

    I've said: Leadership is strategic, deciding why to act. Management is
    tactical, deciding how to act. We need both why and how. Both strategic
    direction and tactical implementation. Leaders tend to get things started,
    depending on management to turn strategies into progress and profits.

    And underneath both leadership and management is the business paradigm. I
    oversimplify my paradigm: "Customers define value."
    If the paradigm is not based on win-win value, then the strategies of
    leadership and the tactics of management are risky.

    Consider what drives a business: Ego of leaders, technology of products,
    positioning against competitors, etc.
    My choice is to be driven by value: Structured, led, and managed to
    consistently increase the win-win value of relationships with customers,
    investors, analysts, and other stakeholders.
    Business is not about revenues, but about relationships that deliver
    revenues.
    Leadership is not about strategy, but about developing relationships that
    deliver loyalty to brands that generates ongoing revenues.

    We can talk about strategy and leadership in abstracts, but in the long run
    we need to put all these concepts in to business models - the highest form
    of integrated strategy.

    The principles are known. New authors deliver their perspectives, yet the
    underlying principles haven't changed. Maybe not since the bazaars of
    ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. We humans seem to need to relearn the basics
    over and over.

    Best,

    Gary


    ...........................................
    Gary Lundquist
    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources*for Innovation
    303-840-9929*
    ...........................................
    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com
    Innovation of Business and
    the Business of InnovationT


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Edward Hampton
    Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 2:17 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy


    "Clawson, Jim" <ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU> 02/27/09 10:12 AM wrote I'm
    enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments. It seems to
    me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably
    intertwined. We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis
    and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question
    "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go
    from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm
    thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic
    Change." I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams. Musings from the
    peanut gallery,
    Jim

    Great musings, Jim.

    In fact, in teaching my master's course titled "Strategic Leadership", I
    used Kotter's book "Leading change as the backbone for the course. This
    despite the fact I assess Kotter's book to be more about managing change
    processes than leading them. (Why would be for another, much longer
    delineation). To balance that, I used Scenarios: The Art of Strategic
    Conversation by Kees van der Heijden as I felt this book successfully argued
    that scenario-based conversations and/or processes is a great process for
    effecting strategic leadership.

    In my younger days, I promoted leadership over management - placed them in
    opposition to each other with a one or the other resolution of that
    conflict. However, since being introduced to a model developed by Dr.
    Jeff Miller and presented at an Association of Leadership Educators
    conference, in which he portrayed management and leadership as two domains
    in a Venn Diagram, I have promoted the idea that to be successful, one has
    to have BOTH leadership AND management.

    In my mind, management provides needed structure for systemic stability
    while leadership encourages expression of free will needed to effect
    human-based organizational behavior to the effect of competitive advantage.
    Along those lines, strong management is needed to provide structure-based
    (non-human system elements) competitive advantage, in my opinion.

    Kind wishes

    Ed
    Drive On!




    Retired Faculty
    Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Department University of
    Central Florida


    407-588-1177


  • 17.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-28-2009 08:21
    Dear Gary,

    Thank you for your reply.

    I use the three phases mentioned by me, because I am under the impression
    that so many organizations develop inspiring visions of the future, not
    realizing that they have an insufficient grasp of the present. To mention
    just one of many indications for this is what happened several years ago,
    when Sarbanes/Oxley legislation forced companies, first in the US and then
    here in Europe, to analyse better their financial, and with it business,
    situation and many discovered that they actually had had no clue about that
    situation. It was very sobering for some CEO´s.

    The Background of my comment on leadership is that putting leaders to much
    on pedestals may result in disempowering others in the organization, which
    makes the organization worse off.
    An example of this can be seen in the case of ABN AMRO. That bank, the
    result of a merger of two important banks in The Netherlands in the late
    ´90´s and soon thereafter merging with Standard Federal in the US and with
    Banco Real in Brasil, was not so long ago the 14th bank in the world. It
    adopted a strategy in the first years of this century, aimed at becoming one
    of the top ten banks in five years time. However, in 2007, a small
    shareholder, the UK hedgefund The Childrens Group (an NGO investing in a
    hedgefund) complained that the bank was more valuable when its senior
    business units were split up and sold independently. This encouraged the
    board to look for a merger and they started negotiations with Barclays.
    However, once this became known, other candidates for mergers/take-overs
    became interested. Soon, three banks working together (Santander, Royal Bank
    of Scotland and Fortis) came together with a bid that was higher than what
    Barclays could afford and the bank was split up. The consumerbank in The
    Netherlands then became part of Fortis, which went down in the bankingcrisis
    in late 2008. the governments of The Netherlands and Belgium together bought
    Fortis and split it up. The Netherlands section of Fortis was still in the
    process of merging with what was left of ABN AMRO, and it was decided that
    the total would continue under the name ABN AMRO. This bank is now owned by
    the Netherlands government, the former Minister of Finance has been made CEO
    and given the task of reorganizing the bank, in preparation for its
    privatization.
    The CEO's who played an important role in building the bank in the 90's, mr.
    Kalff, was a rather old-fashioned banker, risk averse and always keeping an
    eye on his customers. Perhaps people would not so much see him as a leader;
    more as a reliable and competent banker (he was always worried about the
    "bonus-culture", which the bank adopted in an effort "to attract
    international talent"). His successor, mr. Groenink, was very different. He
    was responsible for the challenging strategy of the last years. This fits
    his personality, as he has always been someone to thrive under challenging
    circumstances (just one example: a hunting accident once nearly killed him,
    but he came back with more energy and drive than ever, despite the chronic
    ;pains he had to live with). He was someone everyone admired (he was
    arguably one of the smartest and decisive bankers in the industry) and he
    knew himself that he was better than everyone around him. This lead, already
    years before he became a CEO, to situations in which very capable people
    reporting to him became indecisive, because they acted from the firm belief
    that he would know better and overturn every decision. This lead to a more
    widespread problem when he became CEO, in that soon enough most of the
    bank's top management was afraid to make any decision by themselves (or made
    decisions which they kept from the Board). This is not what he wanted - he
    encouraged his reports to work harder and be more decisive -, but it was the
    unintended outcome of his behavior. What made matters worse was that he was
    far from a "people person"; if one of his reports would not succeed, he
    would not have any patience with that person, which discouraged the people
    under him even more.
    I am sorry about the length of my example (please forgive me also for its
    sketchyness). I merely wanted to point out that sometimes a remarkable
    individual looks good on paper to be the leader, but ends up discouraging
    everyone in the organization.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Gary Lundquist
    Verzonden: vrijdag 27 februari 2009 16:20
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Good morning!

    Jack Ring: Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    Tenets are principles... part of "who we are and want to become."
    Not strategies.

    Joop Remmé: Strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?
    I haven't worked on #1. My paradigm has started with #2. I will rethink my
    Science of Strategy, then build new options into my toolkits for #1.
    Thank you so much!!!

    Dundar Kocaoglu
    "We develop strategy to design a future to our liking."
    That is a remarkable parallel to John Kao's definition of innovation in
    Innovation Nation.
    "(Innovation is) the ability of individuals, companies, and entire
    nations to continuously create their desired future."

    Joop Remmé:
    "Some people treat leadership as grooming a savior."
    I see a culture of ego in industry in which both leader and boards who
    hire are looking for precisely a savior. I'm letting my decades long
    subscription to Fortune because so much content puts CEOs on pedestals..

    Best to all,

    Gary


    ...........................................
    Gary Lundquist
    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources*for Innovation
    303-840-9929*
    ...........................................
    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com
    Innovation of Business and
    the Business of Innovation™


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy


    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership. I
    am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that some
    people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these troubled
    times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has to mean
    that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit some may
    show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes partly a
    matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective future or be
    the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET Portland State University, Portland, Oregon,
    97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics. There
    is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a
    > way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action." They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast." That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy. My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast. So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary. The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point. I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD. Once there, however, things changed. I fell in love with the
    East Coast. Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California.

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such. Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such. When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan. I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper. I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper. Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings. So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning. By golly, I think I will. For starters: A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s). It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional. It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post: The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months. It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that. But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students
    > are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to
    > communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score
    > goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team
    > is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at
    > peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time
    > than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences
    > per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others. This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a
    > way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles
    > by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into
    > Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning
    > environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > > "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to
    > > realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration: Together, strategy and tactics bridge the
    > > gap

    > > between ends and means. Both are concerned with courses of action,
    > > with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics
    > > and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality. As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy." And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ. Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt
    > > with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone. The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and
    > > tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > > "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site
    > > titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings." If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about
    > >> learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to
    > >> get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >


  • 18.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-28-2009 12:53
    Jim and Joop,
     
    Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era.  If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.
     
    My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders.  Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron.  Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone.  What do you think?
     
    George
    /jag 
     
    In a message dated 2/27/2009 11:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU writes:
    I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments.  It seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably intertwined.  We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic Change."  I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings from the peanut gallery, 

       Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488    Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some  may show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action."  They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.  So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary.  The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.  I fell in love with the
    East Coast.  Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California. 

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such.  When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper.  I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper.  Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning.  By golly, I think I will.  For starters:  A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s).  It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months.  It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that.  But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"
     
    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others.  This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > >           "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ.  Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > >         "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >
     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


  • 19.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-28-2009 14:59

    George,

     

    I agree with you-AND I see so many American managers, executives, and executive teams who don't seem to get it.  Global instantaneous communication (the web) has meant that you can't hide margins anymore so yes, as one writer commented, I agree we are slipping worldwide into a homogeneous lukewarm standard of living.  I don't know if that's what you mean by "post-modern".  A big question for me is what does America produce anymore?  It feels to me like we've become a nation of "flip-and-extractors" where the concept of providing on-going, high value added goods and services has left us.  Everyone wants to get a piece.  I'm getting emails almost daily from this or that group (entrepreneurs, associations, universities) all asking how they/we can get their piece of the bailout money.  JEEZ!  THAT's the problem-so many trying to get so much for free!!!  Loopholes, compliance looking for loopholes, trying to find free money, America, in my view, needs to get back to basics:  assumed dependable high quality and differentiating experiences for customers.  I got a Japanese haircut when I was 19 and it ruined me for life.  I've been searching for a similar experience in the US and it's NOT to be found.  America wants more now, and hang tomorrow.  Caveat emptor.  Grow!!  Grow or die!  We as a nation need to move back toward a fair day's work for a fair day's wage.  I've had 5-6 30 year old MBA candidates in class tell me and each other "you can fake anything for two years, get your money and run."  I went ballistic-ruined my ratings.  We've become a nation of fakers.  The deal on the table is never the real deal.  In the midst of this, real value delivery not the fake financial "value" seems to have been lost.  What's the strategy not for the top 100 US companies, what's the strategy for the US as a nation?  What do we produce?  What value do we add?  Automobiles?  TVs?  Appliances?  Chips?  Sugar water?  Fuel/energy?  Cinema?  Music?  We have a 14 trillion $ economy with a $10 trillion debt load-and rising. 

     

    I think MBAs need either at the beginning or at the end or both of their degree programs a serious hard look at the problems facing their generation and encouragement to think of how their new skills and degree are going to help them solve those problems.  I see way too many MBAs coming in who just want to make a fast fortune by investing and flipping and don't talk about a career or a life's work.  

     

    I am, obviously, disturbed by the trend I see.  If our capstone courses would help students identify major issues in their generations and then develop strategies, personal and corporate, for dealing with them, and give them some determination to do so, I think that would be a good thing.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:53 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim and Joop,

     

    Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era.  If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.

     

    My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders.  Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron.  Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone.  What do you think?

     

    George

    /jag 

     

    In a message dated 2/27/2009 11:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU writes:

    I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments.  It seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably intertwined.  We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic Change."  I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings from the peanut gallery, 

       Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488    Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some  may show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action."  They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.  So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary.  The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.  I fell in love with the
    East Coast.  Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California. 

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such.  When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper.  I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper.  Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning.  By golly, I think I will.  For starters:  A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s).  It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months.  It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that.  But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"
     
    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others.  This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > >           "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ.  Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > >         "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >

     

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!



  • 20.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-28-2009 16:26
    Dear Jim,

    Thank-you for going ballistic. If we--the professors--do not start identifying that faking it does not cut it, then there truly is no hope.

    Sincerely,

    Ralph



    On Feb 28, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Clawson, Jim wrote:

    George,
     
    I agree with you-AND I see so many American managers, executives, and executive teams who don't seem to get it.  Global instantaneous communication (the web) has meant that you can't hide margins anymore so yes, as one writer commented, I agree we are slipping worldwide into a homogeneous lukewarm standard of living.  I don't know if that's what you mean by "post-modern".  A big question for me is what does America produce anymore?  It feels to me like we've become a nation of "flip-and-extractors" where the concept of providing on-going, high value added goods and services has left us.  Everyone wants to get a piece.  I'm getting emails almost daily from this or that group (entrepreneurs, associations, universities) all asking how they/we can get their piece of the bailout money.  JEEZ!  THAT's the problem-so many trying to get so much for free!!!  Loopholes, compliance looking for loopholes, trying to find free money, America, in my view, needs to get back to basics:  assumed dependable high quality and differentiating experiences for customers.  I got a Japanese haircut when I was 19 and it ruined me for life.  I've been searching for a similar experience in the US and it's NOT to be found.  America wants more now, and hang tomorrow.  Caveat emptor.  Grow!!  Grow or die!  We as a nation need to move back toward a fair day's work for a fair day's wage.  I've had 5-6 30 year old MBA candidates in class tell me and each other "you can fake anything for two years, get your money and run."  I went ballistic-ruined my ratings.  We've become a nation of fakers.  The deal on the table is never the real deal.  In the midst of this, real value delivery not the fake financial "value" seems to have been lost.  What's the strategy not for the top 100 US companies, what's the strategy for the US as a nation?  What do we produce?  What value do we add?  Automobiles?  TVs?  Appliances?  Chips?  Sugar water?  Fuel/energy?  Cinema?  Music?  We have a 14 trillion $ economy with a $10 trillion debt load-and rising. 
     
    I think MBAs need either at the beginning or at the end or both of their degree programs a serious hard look at the problems facing their generation and encouragement to think of how their new skills and degree are going to help them solve those problems.  I see way too many MBAs coming in who just want to make a fast fortune by investing and flipping and don't talk about a career or a life's work.  
     
    I am, obviously, disturbed by the trend I see.  If our capstone courses would help students identify major issues in their generations and then develop strategies, personal and corporate, for dealing with them, and give them some determination to do so, I think that would be a good thing.
     
       Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680
     
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:53 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy
     
    Jim and Joop,
     
    Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era.  If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.
     
    My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders.  Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron.  Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone.  What do you think?
     
    George
    /jag 
     
    In a message dated 2/27/2009 11:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU writes:
    I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments.  It seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably intertwined.  We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic Change."  I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings from the peanut gallery,  

       Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906   
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488    Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj 

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some  may show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl 
    remme@msm.nl 
    www.knowdialogue.nl 
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl 
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl 
    remme@msm.nl 
    www.knowdialogue.nl 
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl 

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    > 
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas 
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit 
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with 
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action."  They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy). 

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.  So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary.  The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.  I fell in love with the
    East Coast.  Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California.  

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such.  When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper.  I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper.  Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning.  By golly, I think I will.  For starters:  A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s).  It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months.  It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that.  But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"
      
    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather 
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not 
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    > 
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first 
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the 
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it' 
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    > 
    > 
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is 
    > ahead in goals scored.
    > 
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak 
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he 
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per 
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race 
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others.  This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of 
    > being during the course of action.
    > 
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by 
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of 
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    > 
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    > 
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    > 
    > ----- Original Message ----- 
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    > 
    > 
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct 
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > >           "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and 
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As von Moltke observed, "No 
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  And, of course, strategy 
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns 
    > > differ.  Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and 
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some 
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and 
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well. 
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is 
    > > chiseled in stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics. 
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > >         "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a 
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled 
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to 
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t 
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to 
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >
     
     
    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!



  • 21.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-28-2009 16:44
    I have been following this discussion for a few days now, and am in absolute agreement with Jim's last 'rant' on the current MBA generation.
     
    I have only just moved to the US, and taught in the UK before - but the problem is the same everywhere...  There seem to be two main types of MBA programme: either the entrepreural path, where it is absolutely about making your money fast and getting out, or the managerial path, where MBA's are taught to be risk averse, meaning that when they get into the business world, they are taking the least risky option, which often means following the status quo within their organisation.  This kills innovation, and ultimately results in economic decline.
     
    Unfortunately, risk aversion (in terms of both career and organisational development) means that it is easier to do nothing than to do something that may not be successful in the eyes of the organisation.  We as academics are often setting new MBA's up with confidence in perceived abilities that they just do not have, and won't have without some 'real' business experience.  There is an arrogance inherent in MBA cohorts that is sometimes quite astounding, maybe perpetuated by grade inflation (and don't get me started on that subject !!!).  If these students come out of their MBA programmes with a string of 'A's, they think they know it all...  and that is a real problem.
     
    Sorry - this is a bit of a 'rant' as well...
     
    Steve Leybourne
     
    _________________________________________________
     
    Dr Steve Leybourne Ph.D
    Metropolitan College
    Boston University
    808 Commonwealth Avenue
    BOSTON, Ma 02215
     
    Phone:   (617) 358 5626
    Fax:       (617) 353 6840
    Email:    sleyb@bu.edu
     
     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Clawson, Jim
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 2:59 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    George,

     

    I agree with you—AND I see so many American managers, executives, and executive teams who don’t seem to get it.  Global instantaneous communication (the web) has meant that you can’t hide margins anymore so yes, as one writer commented, I agree we are slipping worldwide into a homogeneous lukewarm standard of living.  I don’t know if that’s what you mean by “post-modern”.  A big question for me is what does America produce anymore?  It feels to me like we’ve become a nation of “flip-and-extractors” where the concept of providing on-going, high value added goods and services has left us.  Everyone wants to get a piece.  I’m getting emails almost daily from this or that group (entrepreneurs, associations, universities) all asking how they/we can get their piece of the bailout money.  JEEZ!  THAT’s the problem—so many trying to get so much for free!!!  Loopholes, compliance looking for loopholes, trying to find free money, America, in my view, needs to get back to basics:  assumed dependable high quality and differentiating experiences for customers.  I got a Japanese haircut when I was 19 and it ruined me for life.  I’ve been searching for a similar experience in the US and it’s NOT to be found.  America wants more now, and hang tomorrow.  Caveat emptor.  Grow!!  Grow or die!  We as a nation need to move back toward a fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage.  I’ve had 5-6 30 year old MBA candidates in class tell me and each other “you can fake anything for two years, get your money and run.”  I went ballistic—ruined my ratings.  We’ve become a nation of fakers.  The deal on the table is never the real deal.  In the midst of this, real value delivery not the fake financial “value” seems to have been lost.  What’s the strategy not for the top 100 US companies, what’s the strategy for the US as a nation?  What do we produce?  What value do we add?  Automobiles?  TVs?  Appliances?  Chips?  Sugar water?  Fuel/energy?  Cinema?  Music?  We have a 14 trillion $ economy with a $10 trillion debt load—and rising. 

     

    I think MBAs need either at the beginning or at the end or both of their degree programs a serious hard look at the problems facing their generation and encouragement to think of how their new skills and degree are going to help them solve those problems.  I see way too many MBAs coming in who just want to make a fast fortune by investing and flipping and don’t talk about a career or a life’s work.  

     

    I am, obviously, disturbed by the trend I see.  If our capstone courses would help students identify major issues in their generations and then develop strategies, personal and corporate, for dealing with them, and give them some determination to do so, I think that would be a good thing.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:53 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim and Joop,

     

    Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era.  If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.

     

    My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders.  Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron.  Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone.  What do you think?

     

    George

    /jag 

     

    In a message dated 2/27/2009 11:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU writes:

    I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments.  It seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably intertwined.  We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic Change."  I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings from the peanut gallery, 

       Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488    Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some  may show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action."  They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.  So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary.  The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.  I fell in love with the
    East Coast.  Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California. 

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such.  When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper.  I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper.  Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning.  By golly, I think I will.  For starters:  A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s).  It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months.  It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that.  But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"
     
    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others.  This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > >           "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ.  Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > >         "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >

     

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!



  • 22.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-28-2009 17:00
    Jim
    You need not go any further than to look to our neighbor to the north-Canada- to find an answer and that is the relativism that grows from the lack of an ethical grounding.
    Until our country embraces ethical values as part and parcel of well run companies and inspired leadership, as our Canadian cousins have for so many years (and value same in equities), we will repeat the same mistakes that cause acute economic corrections and crises.
    With warmest regards,
    Ramon Jose Venero
    Nova Southeastern University

    Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

    From: Ralph Hanke <ralphh@bgsu.edu>
    Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:26:13 -0500
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear Jim,


    Thank-you for going ballistic. If we--the professors--do not start identifying that faking it does not cut it, then there truly is no hope.

    Sincerely,

    Ralph



    On Feb 28, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Clawson, Jim wrote:

    George,
     
    I agree with you-AND I see so many American managers, executives, and executive teams who don't seem to get it.  Global instantaneous communication (the web) has meant that you can't hide margins anymore so yes, as one writer commented, I agree we are slipping worldwide into a homogeneous lukewarm standard of living.  I don't know if that's what you mean by "post-modern".  A big question for me is what does America produce anymore?  It feels to me like we've become a nation of "flip-and-extractors" where the concept of providing on-going, high value added goods and services has left us.  Everyone wants to get a piece.  I'm getting emails almost daily from this or that group (entrepreneurs, associations, universities) all asking how they/we can get their piece of the bailout money.  JEEZ!  THAT's the problem-so many trying to get so much for free!!!  Loopholes, compliance looking for loopholes, trying to find free money, America, in my view, needs to get back to basics:  assumed dependable high quality and differentiating experiences for customers.  I got a Japanese haircut when I was 19 and it ruined me for life.  I've been searching for a similar experience in the US and it's NOT to be found.  America wants more now, and hang tomorrow.  Caveat emptor.  Grow!!  Grow or die!  We as a nation need to move back toward a fair day's work for a fair day's wage.  I've had 5-6 30 year old MBA candidates in class tell me and each other "you can fake anything for two years, get your money and run."  I went ballistic-ruined my ratings.  We've become a nation of fakers.  The deal on the table is never the real deal.  In the midst of this, real value delivery not the fake financial "value" seems to have been lost.  What's the strategy not for the top 100 US companies, what's the strategy for the US as a nation?  What do we produce?  What value do we add?  Automobiles?  TVs?  Appliances?  Chips?  Sugar water?  Fuel/energy?  Cinema?  Music?  We have a 14 trillion $ economy with a $10 trillion debt load-and rising. 
     
    I think MBAs need either at the beginning or at the end or both of their degree programs a serious hard look at the problems facing their generation and encouragement to think of how their new skills and degree are going to help them solve those problems.  I see way too many MBAs coming in who just want to make a fast fortune by investing and flipping and don't talk about a career or a life's work.  
     
    I am, obviously, disturbed by the trend I see.  If our capstone courses would help students identify major issues in their generations and then develop strategies, personal and corporate, for dealing with them, and give them some determination to do so, I think that would be a good thing.
     
       Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680
     
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:53 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy
     
    Jim and Joop,
     
    Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era.  If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.
     
    My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders.  Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron.  Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone.  What do you think?
     
    George
    /jag 
     
    In a message dated 2/27/2009 11:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU writes:
    I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments.  It seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably intertwined.  We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic Change."  I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings from the peanut gallery,  

       Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906   
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488    Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj 

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some  may show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl 
    remme@msm.nl 
    www.knowdialogue.nl 
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl 
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl 
    remme@msm.nl 
    www.knowdialogue.nl 
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl 

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    > 
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas 
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit 
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with 
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action."  They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy). 

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.  So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary.  The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.  I fell in love with the
    East Coast.  Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California.  

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such.  When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper.  I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper.  Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning.  By golly, I think I will.  For starters:  A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s).  It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months.  It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that.  But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"
      
    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather 
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not 
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    > 
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first 
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the 
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it' 
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    > 
    > 
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is 
    > ahead in goals scored.
    > 
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak 
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he 
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per 
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race 
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others.  This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of 
    > being during the course of action.
    > 
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by 
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of 
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    > 
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    > 
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    > 
    > ----- Original Message ----- 
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    > 
    > 
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct 
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > >           "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and 
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As von Moltke observed, "No 
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  And, of course, strategy 
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns 
    > > differ.  Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and 
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some 
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and 
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well. 
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is 
    > > chiseled in stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics. 
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > >         "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a 
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled 
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to 
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t 
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to 
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >
     
     
    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!

    </ralphh@bgsu.edu>


  • 23.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-28-2009 17:01
    Jim,
     
    When your students understand Systems 401 then they will know that the strategy for a Nation is simply the conflation of the strategies of the elements of the nation. The nation, legal entity that it is, cannot have strategy.
     
    However, fakers (politicians) by anthropomorphizing 'government' can sell the lie to all those who have not graduated from Systems 101.
     
    All large, complex systems are composed of small successful systems. Pending the latter, all else of simply an apparition called government.
     
    Russell Ackoff's You, Inc. may be an important concept.
     
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:59 PM
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    George,

     

    I agree with you—AND I see so many American managers, executives, and executive teams who don’t seem to get it.  Global instantaneous communication (the web) has meant that you can’t hide margins anymore so yes, as one writer commented, I agree we are slipping worldwide into a homogeneous lukewarm standard of living.  I don’t know if that’s what you mean by “post-modern”.  A big question for me is what does America produce anymore?  It feels to me like we’ve become a nation of “flip-and-extractors” where the concept of providing on-going, high value added goods and services has left us.  Everyone wants to get a piece.  I’m getting emails almost daily from this or that group (entrepreneurs, associations, universities) all asking how they/we can get their piece of the bailout money.  JEEZ!  THAT’s the problem—so many trying to get so much for free!!!  Loopholes, compliance looking for loopholes, trying to find free money, America, in my view, needs to get back to basics:  assumed dependable high quality and differentiating experiences for customers.  I got a Japanese haircut when I was 19 and it ruined me for life.  I’ve been searching for a similar experience in the US and it’s NOT to be found.  America wants more now, and hang tomorrow.  Caveat emptor.  Grow!!  Grow or die!  We as a nation need to move back toward a fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage.  I’ve had 5-6 30 year old MBA candidates in class tell me and each other “you can fake anything for two years, get your money and run.”  I went ballistic—ruined my ratings.  We’ve become a nation of fakers.  The deal on the table is never the real deal.  In the midst of this, real value delivery not the fake financial “value” seems to have been lost.  What’s the strategy not for the top 100 US companies, what’s the strategy for the US as a nation?  What do we produce?  What value do we add?  Automobiles?  TVs?  Appliances?  Chips?  Sugar water?  Fuel/energy?  Cinema?  Music?  We have a 14 trillion $ economy with a $10 trillion debt load—and rising. 

     

    I think MBAs need either at the beginning or at the end or both of their degree programs a serious hard look at the problems facing their generation and encouragement to think of how their new skills and degree are going to help them solve those problems.  I see way too many MBAs coming in who just want to make a fast fortune by investing and flipping and don’t talk about a career or a life’s work.  

     

    I am, obviously, disturbed by the trend I see.  If our capstone courses would help students identify major issues in their generations and then develop strategies, personal and corporate, for dealing with them, and give them some determination to do so, I think that would be a good thing.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:53 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim and Joop,

     

    Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era.  If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.

     

    My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders.  Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron.  Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone.  What do you think?

     

    George

    /jag 

     

    In a message dated 2/27/2009 11:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU writes:

    I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments.  It seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably intertwined.  We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic Change."  I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings from the peanut gallery, 

       Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488    Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some  may show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action."  They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.  So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary.  The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.  I fell in love with the
    East Coast.  Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California. 

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such.  When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper.  I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper.  Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning.  By golly, I think I will.  For starters:  A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s).  It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months.  It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that.  But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"
     
    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others.  This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > >           "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ.  Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > >         "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >

     

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!



  • 24.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-28-2009 21:05
    I too have been following this discussion and am taking a "strategy" course at the same time. I must concur with the rants and issues, but the question remains: What can or should be done differently to educate and train new managers and organizational governors to do things differently?  

    As educators who have the ability to craft courses and train students and incumbent managers, what are the next steps?

    I am not convinced that the nonprofit world is any better at ethical behavior, but there are different constraints such as the nondistribution of excess revenues to keep some of the problems to a smaller scale.  DEB

    Deborah L Rhodes
    Capella University, doctoral learner
    School of Business and Technology
    Management Education Specialization
    Resident in Tampa, FL


    On 2/28/09 4:44 PM, "Leybourne, Stephen A." <sleyb@BU.EDU> wrote:

    I have been following this discussion for a few days now, and am in absolute agreement with Jim's last 'rant' on the current MBA generation.

    I have only just moved to the US, and taught in the UK before - but the problem is the same everywhere...  There seem to be two main types of MBA programme: either the entrepreural path, where it is absolutely about making your money fast and getting out, or the managerial path, where MBA's are taught to be risk averse, meaning that when they get into the business world, they are taking the least risky option, which often means following the status quo within their organisation.  This kills innovation, and ultimately results in economic decline.

    Unfortunately, risk aversion (in terms of both career and organisational development) means that it is easier to do nothing than to do something that may not be successful in the eyes of the organisation.  We as academics are often setting new MBA's up with confidence in perceived abilities that they just do not have, and won't have without some 'real' business experience.  There is an arrogance inherent in MBA cohorts that is sometimes quite astounding, maybe perpetuated by grade inflation (and don't get me started on that subject !!!).  If these students come out of their MBA programmes with a string of 'A's, they think they know it all...  and that is a real problem.

    Sorry - this is a bit of a 'rant' as well...

    Steve Leybourne

    _________________________________________________

    Dr Steve Leybourne Ph.D
    Metropolitan College
    Boston University
    808 Commonwealth Avenue
    BOSTON, Ma 02215

    Phone:   (617) 358 5626
    Fax:       (617) 353 6840
    Email:    sleyb@bu.edu
    Web:     http://people.bu.edu/sleyb  


     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Clawson, Jim
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 2:59 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    George,
     
    I agree with you-AND I see so many American managers, executives, and executive teams who don't seem to get it.  Global instantaneous communication (the web) has meant that you can't hide margins anymore so yes, as one writer commented, I agree we are slipping worldwide into a homogeneous lukewarm standard of living.  I don't know if that's what you mean by "post-modern".  A big question for me is what does America produce anymore?  It feels to me like we've become a nation of "flip-and-extractors" where the concept of providing on-going, high value added goods and services has left us.  Everyone wants to get a piece.  I'm getting emails almost daily from this or that group (entrepreneurs, associations, universities) all asking how they/we can get their piece of the bailout money.  JEEZ!  THAT's the problem-so many trying to get so much for free!!!  Loopholes, compliance looking for loopholes, trying to find free money, America, in my view, needs to get back to basics:  assumed dependable high quality and differentiating experiences for customers.  I got a Japanese haircut when I was 19 and it ruined me for life.  I've been searching for a similar experience in the US and it's NOT to be found.  America wants more now, and hang tomorrow.  Caveat emptor.  Grow!!  Grow or die!  We as a nation need to move back toward a fair day's work for a fair day's wage.  I've had 5-6 30 year old MBA candidates in class tell me and each other "you can fake anything for two years, get your money and run."  I went ballistic-ruined my ratings.  We've become a nation of fakers.  The deal on the table is never the real deal.  In the midst of this, real value delivery not the fake financial "value" seems to have been lost.  What's the strategy not for the top 100 US companies, what's the strategy for the US as a nation?  What do we produce?  What value do we add?  Automobiles?  TVs?  Appliances?  Chips?  Sugar water?  Fuel/energy?  Cinema?  Music?  We have a 14 trillion $ economy with a $10 trillion debt load-and rising.  
     
    I think MBAs need either at the beginning or at the end or both of their degree programs a serious hard look at the problems facing their generation and encouragement to think of how their new skills and degree are going to help them solve those problems.  I see way too many MBAs coming in who just want to make a fast fortune by investing and flipping and don't talk about a career or a life's work.  
     
    I am, obviously, disturbed by the trend I see.  If our capstone courses would help students identify major issues in their generations and then develop strategies, personal and corporate, for dealing with them, and give them some determination to do so, I think that would be a good thing.
     

       Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906   
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj


    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:53 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy


    Jim and Joop,



    Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era.  If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.



    My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders.  Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron.  Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone.  What do you think?



    George

    /jag



    In a message dated 2/27/2009 11:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU writes:

    I'm  enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments.  It seems  to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably  intertwined.  We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of  analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question  "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go  from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm  thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic  Change."  I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings  from the peanut gallery,  

       Jim
    James G. S.  Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business  Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550,  Charlottesville, VA 22906   
    100 Darden Boulevard,  Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488     Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:   http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

    -----Original  Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion  [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday,  February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re:  Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable  comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with  all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership  as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much  more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has  to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some  may show an example in  this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/  fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of  someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop  Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl  
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl  
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and  Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar  Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan:  MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of  Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also  add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we  do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like  it.

    Dundar  Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar  F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and  Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and  President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon,  97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 -  fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and   http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original  Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development  Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop  Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To:  MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear  colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching,  I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2)  where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might  say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is  my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is  in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality  management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best  regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl  
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl  

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and  Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens  nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan:  MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of  Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and  tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth  some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy,  rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being.  Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years  ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    >  Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy  was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was  'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited  above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action."  They are  quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of  description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses  of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in  Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly  of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time  strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West  Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the  Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and  I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then,  or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much  higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.  So, I envisioned
    a  strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East  that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving  all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the  purchasing power of my East Coast salary.  The strategy worked  as
    envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to Evanston,  Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.   I fell in love with the
    East Coast.  Business was good, I was making  more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to  California.  

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have  to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does  a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such.   When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for  my printer, I am following a
    plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind:  to obtain a ream of paper.  I have
    some actions in mind: getting in  the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other  items as well), and returning home with the
    paper.  Mission  accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its  definitions and
    meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and  inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning.  By golly, I  think I will.  For starters:  A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of  one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s).   It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations,  due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all  optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of  the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The  paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site  for a few years now, not a
    few months.  It gets some minor editing  from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do  that.  But, the basic paper has been out
    there a  while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing  Partner
    Distance Consulting,  LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A  Distance"
      
    -------------- Original message  ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring  <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a  planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy  and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to  notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's  "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted  several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the  
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get  it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the  futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal'  to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one  team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale  Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in  favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he  
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time  than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag  incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage  for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than  others.  This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment)  was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of  action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age  is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not  coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have  failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too  focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must  we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    >  for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    >  Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From:  <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    >  Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of  Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to  Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so  I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > >            "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to  realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some  elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    >  > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action,  with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context  for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As  von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the  enemy."  And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both  concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ.   Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > >  tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As  strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some  
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are  dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never  anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and,  perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent,  evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in  stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might  well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > >  Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > >          "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to  realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For  more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    >  > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to  
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    >  >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred  Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting,  LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    >  >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > >  -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack  Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily,  start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result'  is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    >  >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about  learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim  is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >>  there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    >  >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >>  cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >


    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62>




  • 25.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 02-28-2009 21:42

    How old does one have to be to be able to say what they think openly?  Is that even possible? 

    We just saw Slumdog Millionaire.  I can't help but thinking that so little has changed since our (human) first recorded writings.  We've spread out over the face of the earth like lemmings or roaches consuming everything in our path with a few living high and most living low.  We tout on the one hand "unalienable rights" yet Mother Nature nor our culture(s) do not grant them to most of the people on the earth.  And, Jack, if there are no values in strategy, if it's just a collection of systems, what good is it? We Americans NEED a national strategy.  Most of the American systems are broken or breaking.  Beginning with Phineas Gage up through Tony Damasio, I think we HAVE to say value comes from within.  I'm moving down a path that has me thinking recently that "character is a vastly overrated concept."  Transparency and oversight seem to be the only answer.  Perhaps there are a few who can envision, who can see beyond today, who build for a future-have our institutions all grown too big that one cannot make a difference?  The second strategy question, where do we want to go, seems so much more important now.  What system can create that?

     

    What's that for you-where you want to go?  For your school?  For your nation?  Are we producing or even encouraging students who can and will envision and create?  Maybe we should go back to Robert Fritz' the Path of Least Resistance and employ the creative process instead of the problem solving one. 

     

    My friends and colleagues, most of whom, I've never met, what do you envision for your students and how they might deal with the issues of their generation?  Can we teach them how to create a compelling vision in their minds?  Do they even care?

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 5:01 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim,

     

    When your students understand Systems 401 then they will know that the strategy for a Nation is simply the conflation of the strategies of the elements of the nation. The nation, legal entity that it is, cannot have strategy.

     

    However, fakers (politicians) by anthropomorphizing 'government' can sell the lie to all those who have not graduated from Systems 101.

     

    All large, complex systems are composed of small successful systems. Pending the latter, all else of simply an apparition called government.

     

    Russell Ackoff's You, Inc. may be an important concept.

     

    Jack Ring

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Clawson, Jim

    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:59 PM

    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    George,

     

    I agree with you-AND I see so many American managers, executives, and executive teams who don't seem to get it.  Global instantaneous communication (the web) has meant that you can't hide margins anymore so yes, as one writer commented, I agree we are slipping worldwide into a homogeneous lukewarm standard of living.  I don't know if that's what you mean by "post-modern".  A big question for me is what does America produce anymore?  It feels to me like we've become a nation of "flip-and-extractors" where the concept of providing on-going, high value added goods and services has left us.  Everyone wants to get a piece.  I'm getting emails almost daily from this or that group (entrepreneurs, associations, universities) all asking how they/we can get their piece of the bailout money.  JEEZ!  THAT's the problem-so many trying to get so much for free!!!  Loopholes, compliance looking for loopholes, trying to find free money, America, in my view, needs to get back to basics:  assumed dependable high quality and differentiating experiences for customers.  I got a Japanese haircut when I was 19 and it ruined me for life.  I've been searching for a similar experience in the US and it's NOT to be found.  America wants more now, and hang tomorrow.  Caveat emptor.  Grow!!  Grow or die!  We as a nation need to move back toward a fair day's work for a fair day's wage.  I've had 5-6 30 year old MBA candidates in class tell me and each other "you can fake anything for two years, get your money and run."  I went ballistic-ruined my ratings.  We've become a nation of fakers.  The deal on the table is never the real deal.  In the midst of this, real value delivery not the fake financial "value" seems to have been lost.  What's the strategy not for the top 100 US companies, what's the strategy for the US as a nation?  What do we produce?  What value do we add?  Automobiles?  TVs?  Appliances?  Chips?  Sugar water?  Fuel/energy?  Cinema?  Music?  We have a 14 trillion $ economy with a $10 trillion debt load-and rising. 

     

    I think MBAs need either at the beginning or at the end or both of their degree programs a serious hard look at the problems facing their generation and encouragement to think of how their new skills and degree are going to help them solve those problems.  I see way too many MBAs coming in who just want to make a fast fortune by investing and flipping and don't talk about a career or a life's work.  

     

    I am, obviously, disturbed by the trend I see.  If our capstone courses would help students identify major issues in their generations and then develop strategies, personal and corporate, for dealing with them, and give them some determination to do so, I think that would be a good thing.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:53 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim and Joop,

     

    Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era.  If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.

     

    My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders.  Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron.  Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone.  What do you think?

     

    George

    /jag 

     

    In a message dated 2/27/2009 11:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU writes:

    I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments.  It seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably intertwined.  We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic Change."  I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings from the peanut gallery, 

       Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488    Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some  may show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action."  They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.  So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary.  The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.  I fell in love with the
    East Coast.  Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California. 

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such.  When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper.  I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper.  Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning.  By golly, I think I will.  For starters:  A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s).  It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months.  It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that.  But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"
     
    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others.  This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > >           "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ.  Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > >         "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >

     

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!



  • 26.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 03-01-2009 10:13

    Jim –

    When you say "We Americans ....", do you also mean the citizens who reside in Canada, Central and South America, or are you just referring to the citizens of the United States?

     

    Mike Krause

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Clawson, Jim
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:42 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    How old does one have to be to be able to say what they think openly?  Is that even possible? 

    We just saw Slumdog Millionaire.  I can't help but thinking that so little has changed since our (human) first recorded writings.  We've spread out over the face of the earth like lemmings or roaches consuming everything in our path with a few living high and most living low.  We tout on the one hand "unalienable rights" yet Mother Nature nor our culture(s) do not grant them to most of the people on the earth.  And, Jack, if there are no values in strategy, if it's just a collection of systems, what good is it? We Americans NEED a national strategy.  Most of the American systems are broken or breaking.  Beginning with Phineas Gage up through Tony Damasio, I think we HAVE to say value comes from within.  I'm moving down a path that has me thinking recently that "character is a vastly overrated concept."  Transparency and oversight seem to be the only answer.  Perhaps there are a few who can envision, who can see beyond today, who build for a future-have our institutions all grown too big that one cannot make a difference?  The second strategy question, where do we want to go, seems so much more important now.  What system can create that?

     

    What's that for you-where you want to go?  For your school?  For your nation?  Are we producing or even encouraging students who can and will envision and create?  Maybe we should go back to Robert Fritz' the Path of Least Resistance and employ the creative process instead of the problem solving one. 

     

    My friends and colleagues, most of whom, I've never met, what do you envision for your students and how they might deal with the issues of their generation?  Can we teach them how to create a compelling vision in their minds?  Do they even care?

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 5:01 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim,

     

    When your students understand Systems 401 then they will know that the strategy for a Nation is simply the conflation of the strategies of the elements of the nation. The nation, legal entity that it is, cannot have strategy.

     

    However, fakers (politicians) by anthropomorphizing 'government' can sell the lie to all those who have not graduated from Systems 101.

     

    All large, complex systems are composed of small successful systems. Pending the latter, all else of simply an apparition called government.

     

    Russell Ackoff's You, Inc. may be an important concept.

     

    Jack Ring

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Clawson, Jim

    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:59 PM

    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    George,

     

    I agree with you-AND I see so many American managers, executives, and executive teams who don't seem to get it.  Global instantaneous communication (the web) has meant that you can't hide margins anymore so yes, as one writer commented, I agree we are slipping worldwide into a homogeneous lukewarm standard of living.  I don't know if that's what you mean by "post-modern".  A big question for me is what does America produce anymore?  It feels to me like we've become a nation of "flip-and-extractors" where the concept of providing on-going, high value added goods and services has left us.  Everyone wants to get a piece.  I'm getting emails almost daily from this or that group (entrepreneurs, associations, universities) all asking how they/we can get their piece of the bailout money.  JEEZ!  THAT's the problem-so many trying to get so much for free!!!  Loopholes, compliance looking for loopholes, trying to find free money, America, in my view, needs to get back to basics:  assumed dependable high quality and differentiating experiences for customers.  I got a Japanese haircut when I was 19 and it ruined me for life.  I've been searching for a similar experience in the US and it's NOT to be found.  America wants more now, and hang tomorrow.  Caveat emptor.  Grow!!  Grow or die!  We as a nation need to move back toward a fair day's work for a fair day's wage.  I've had 5-6 30 year old MBA candidates in class tell me and each other "you can fake anything for two years, get your money and run."  I went ballistic-ruined my ratings.  We've become a nation of fakers.  The deal on the table is never the real deal.  In the midst of this, real value delivery not the fake financial "value" seems to have been lost.  What's the strategy not for the top 100 US companies, what's the strategy for the US as a nation?  What do we produce?  What value do we add?  Automobiles?  TVs?  Appliances?  Chips?  Sugar water?  Fuel/energy?  Cinema?  Music?  We have a 14 trillion $ economy with a $10 trillion debt load-and rising. 

     

    I think MBAs need either at the beginning or at the end or both of their degree programs a serious hard look at the problems facing their generation and encouragement to think of how their new skills and degree are going to help them solve those problems.  I see way too many MBAs coming in who just want to make a fast fortune by investing and flipping and don't talk about a career or a life's work.  

     

    I am, obviously, disturbed by the trend I see.  If our capstone courses would help students identify major issues in their generations and then develop strategies, personal and corporate, for dealing with them, and give them some determination to do so, I think that would be a good thing.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:53 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim and Joop,

     

    Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era.  If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.

     

    My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders.  Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron.  Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone.  What do you think?

     

    George

    /jag 

     

    In a message dated 2/27/2009 11:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU writes:

    I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments.  It seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably intertwined.  We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic Change."  I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings from the peanut gallery, 

       Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488    Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some  may show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action."  They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.  So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary.  The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.  I fell in love with the
    East Coast.  Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California. 

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such.  When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper.  I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper.  Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning.  By golly, I think I will.  For starters:  A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s).  It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months.  It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that.  But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"
     
    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others.  This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > >           "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ.  Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > >         "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >

     

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!



  • 27.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 03-01-2009 11:08

    Hi Mike,

     

    I meant to suggest that the USA needs a national strategy rather than to presume that all subscribers were USofA-ers, so by saying "we Americans" I meant to limit that rather than "we" presuming all readers were from the USofA.  You're exactly right-the Americas refers to the Western Hemisphere and I was trying to be sensitive to that but obviously not clearly enough.  Even in Spanish, Norteamericanos, while implying those from the US of A, would also include Canadians, yes?  What's the short-hand term for citizens of the United States of America?  USA-ers?  USAians? 

     

    Respectfully,

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of mikekrause
    Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 10:13 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim –

    When you say "We Americans ....", do you also mean the citizens who reside in Canada, Central and South America, or are you just referring to the citizens of the United States?

     

    Mike Krause

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Clawson, Jim
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:42 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    How old does one have to be to be able to say what they think openly?  Is that even possible? 

    We just saw Slumdog Millionaire.  I can't help but thinking that so little has changed since our (human) first recorded writings.  We've spread out over the face of the earth like lemmings or roaches consuming everything in our path with a few living high and most living low.  We tout on the one hand "unalienable rights" yet Mother Nature nor our culture(s) do not grant them to most of the people on the earth.  And, Jack, if there are no values in strategy, if it's just a collection of systems, what good is it? We Americans NEED a national strategy.  Most of the American systems are broken or breaking.  Beginning with Phineas Gage up through Tony Damasio, I think we HAVE to say value comes from within.  I'm moving down a path that has me thinking recently that "character is a vastly overrated concept."  Transparency and oversight seem to be the only answer.  Perhaps there are a few who can envision, who can see beyond today, who build for a future-have our institutions all grown too big that one cannot make a difference?  The second strategy question, where do we want to go, seems so much more important now.  What system can create that?

     

    What's that for you-where you want to go?  For your school?  For your nation?  Are we producing or even encouraging students who can and will envision and create?  Maybe we should go back to Robert Fritz' the Path of Least Resistance and employ the creative process instead of the problem solving one. 

     

    My friends and colleagues, most of whom, I've never met, what do you envision for your students and how they might deal with the issues of their generation?  Can we teach them how to create a compelling vision in their minds?  Do they even care?

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 5:01 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim,

     

    When your students understand Systems 401 then they will know that the strategy for a Nation is simply the conflation of the strategies of the elements of the nation. The nation, legal entity that it is, cannot have strategy.

     

    However, fakers (politicians) by anthropomorphizing 'government' can sell the lie to all those who have not graduated from Systems 101.

     

    All large, complex systems are composed of small successful systems. Pending the latter, all else of simply an apparition called government.

     

    Russell Ackoff's You, Inc. may be an important concept.

     

    Jack Ring

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Clawson, Jim

    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:59 PM

    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    George,

     

    I agree with you-AND I see so many American managers, executives, and executive teams who don't seem to get it.  Global instantaneous communication (the web) has meant that you can't hide margins anymore so yes, as one writer commented, I agree we are slipping worldwide into a homogeneous lukewarm standard of living.  I don't know if that's what you mean by "post-modern".  A big question for me is what does America produce anymore?  It feels to me like we've become a nation of "flip-and-extractors" where the concept of providing on-going, high value added goods and services has left us.  Everyone wants to get a piece.  I'm getting emails almost daily from this or that group (entrepreneurs, associations, universities) all asking how they/we can get their piece of the bailout money.  JEEZ!  THAT's the problem-so many trying to get so much for free!!!  Loopholes, compliance looking for loopholes, trying to find free money, America, in my view, needs to get back to basics:  assumed dependable high quality and differentiating experiences for customers.  I got a Japanese haircut when I was 19 and it ruined me for life.  I've been searching for a similar experience in the US and it's NOT to be found.  America wants more now, and hang tomorrow.  Caveat emptor.  Grow!!  Grow or die!  We as a nation need to move back toward a fair day's work for a fair day's wage.  I've had 5-6 30 year old MBA candidates in class tell me and each other "you can fake anything for two years, get your money and run."  I went ballistic-ruined my ratings.  We've become a nation of fakers.  The deal on the table is never the real deal.  In the midst of this, real value delivery not the fake financial "value" seems to have been lost.  What's the strategy not for the top 100 US companies, what's the strategy for the US as a nation?  What do we produce?  What value do we add?  Automobiles?  TVs?  Appliances?  Chips?  Sugar water?  Fuel/energy?  Cinema?  Music?  We have a 14 trillion $ economy with a $10 trillion debt load-and rising. 

     

    I think MBAs need either at the beginning or at the end or both of their degree programs a serious hard look at the problems facing their generation and encouragement to think of how their new skills and degree are going to help them solve those problems.  I see way too many MBAs coming in who just want to make a fast fortune by investing and flipping and don't talk about a career or a life's work.  

     

    I am, obviously, disturbed by the trend I see.  If our capstone courses would help students identify major issues in their generations and then develop strategies, personal and corporate, for dealing with them, and give them some determination to do so, I think that would be a good thing.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:53 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim and Joop,

     

    Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era.  If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.

     

    My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders.  Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron.  Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone.  What do you think?

     

    George

    /jag 

     

    In a message dated 2/27/2009 11:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU writes:

    I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments.  It seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably intertwined.  We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic Change."  I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings from the peanut gallery, 

       Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488    Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some  may show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action."  They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.  So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary.  The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.  I fell in love with the
    East Coast.  Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California. 

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such.  When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper.  I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper.  Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning.  By golly, I think I will.  For starters:  A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s).  It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months.  It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that.  But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"
     
    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others.  This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > >           "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ.  Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > >         "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >

     

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!



  • 28.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 03-01-2009 12:02
    Well, darn! I guess we'll have to stop singing "God Bless America" and "America the Beautiful." Our politicians have already started saying "God Bless the United States of America" instead of the older, simpler "God Bless America" so I guess there's been some progress on that front. As for "Norteamericanos" there are so many Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the United States of America, that term is rapidly losing its meaning. I guess it really gets confusing when you consider African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Japanese-Americans and other hyphenated Americans. (Me, I'm from German-American and English-American stock.)

    Aha! I've got it. By George, I've got it. Given the dictum that one's utterances should offend no one at any time, the solution is obvious: Say nothing.

    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: mikekrause <mikekrause@EROLS.COM>
    >
    > Jim –
    >
    > When you say “We Americans ….”, do you also mean the citizens who reside in
    > Canada, Central and South America, or are you just referring to the citizens
    > of the United States?


  • 29.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 03-01-2009 20:30
    Jim,
     
    I agree that values are paramount, that's why I asked earlier which professors involve their students in axiology. However, I claim that stakeholder values are a factor in selection of Objective far more than in decisions for allocating and scheduling resources to overcome impediments to achieve such objective.
     
    This is being demonstrated before our very eyes, today, in the U.S.  One faction values the destruction of capitalism. A strategy for doing so was published as the Cloward-Piven strategy for deconstructing capitalism, published in the 1960's, thousands of reprints served, taught at Columbia U. and other places.  (One summary is 'overwhelming the bureaucracy with demands it cannot possibly meet thereby branding it as obsolete).
     
    The current administration can be seen as executing to the Cloward-Piven strategy with great skill. There are others, of course, who don't see it that way. However, transparency and oversight won't save the day because 'scorekeeping, can become obsessed with marking the execution while never questioning the viability of the effects of the course of action. Political observers from Machiavelli to George Orwell have told us that.
     
    Sooooo, this nation does have a strategy. It is not the strategy framed in the U.S. Constitution or a strategy that has emerged from dialog but that doesn't matter to a population that was raised on situation ethics and, despite Ben Franklin's warning, thinks they can sustain a behavior of writing themselves a check out of other people's funds. And it won't matter to the next generation, schooled on the principles of community organizing.
     
    I can assure you that youth can be educed into creating a compelling vision in their minds.
    Youth can even be educed into 'checking their work' to determine whether said vision is beneficial.
    Unfortunately youth can even be mis-taught WHICH vision to adopt (think of the kids in Taliban schools rocking to and fro while memorizing another man's values). We must do the first and second or the third will be done to us.
     
    One key is to understand the formation of strategy well enough that we can construct a strategy for arriving at a sustainable objective. The U.S. founding fathers did it once. 'We' must do it again. Sorry but transparency and oversight won't be sufficient.
     
    Onward,
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:42 PM
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    How old does one have to be to be able to say what they think openly?  Is that even possible? 

    We just saw Slumdog Millionaire.  I can’t help but thinking that so little has changed since our (human) first recorded writings.  We’ve spread out over the face of the earth like lemmings or roaches consuming everything in our path with a few living high and most living low.  We tout on the one hand “unalienable rights” yet Mother Nature nor our culture(s) do not grant them to most of the people on the earth.  And, Jack, if there are no values in strategy, if it’s just a collection of systems, what good is it? We Americans NEED a national strategy.  Most of the American systems are broken or breaking.  Beginning with Phineas Gage up through Tony Damasio, I think we HAVE to say value comes from within.  I’m moving down a path that has me thinking recently that “character is a vastly overrated concept.”  Transparency and oversight seem to be the only answer.  Perhaps there are a few who can envision, who can see beyond today, who build for a future—have our institutions all grown too big that one cannot make a difference?  The second strategy question, where do we want to go, seems so much more important now.  What system can create that?

     

    What’s that for you—where you want to go?  For your school?  For your nation?  Are we producing or even encouraging students who can and will envision and create?  Maybe we should go back to Robert Fritz’ the Path of Least Resistance and employ the creative process instead of the problem solving one. 

     

    My friends and colleagues, most of whom, I’ve never met, what do you envision for your students and how they might deal with the issues of their generation?  Can we teach them how to create a compelling vision in their minds?  Do they even care?

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 5:01 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim,

     

    When your students understand Systems 401 then they will know that the strategy for a Nation is simply the conflation of the strategies of the elements of the nation. The nation, legal entity that it is, cannot have strategy.

     

    However, fakers (politicians) by anthropomorphizing 'government' can sell the lie to all those who have not graduated from Systems 101.

     

    All large, complex systems are composed of small successful systems. Pending the latter, all else of simply an apparition called government.

     

    Russell Ackoff's You, Inc. may be an important concept.

     

    Jack Ring

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Clawson, Jim

    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:59 PM

    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    George,

     

    I agree with you—AND I see so many American managers, executives, and executive teams who don’t seem to get it.  Global instantaneous communication (the web) has meant that you can’t hide margins anymore so yes, as one writer commented, I agree we are slipping worldwide into a homogeneous lukewarm standard of living.  I don’t know if that’s what you mean by “post-modern”.  A big question for me is what does America produce anymore?  It feels to me like we’ve become a nation of “flip-and-extractors” where the concept of providing on-going, high value added goods and services has left us.  Everyone wants to get a piece.  I’m getting emails almost daily from this or that group (entrepreneurs, associations, universities) all asking how they/we can get their piece of the bailout money.  JEEZ!  THAT’s the problem—so many trying to get so much for free!!!  Loopholes, compliance looking for loopholes, trying to find free money, America, in my view, needs to get back to basics:  assumed dependable high quality and differentiating experiences for customers.  I got a Japanese haircut when I was 19 and it ruined me for life.  I’ve been searching for a similar experience in the US and it’s NOT to be found.  America wants more now, and hang tomorrow.  Caveat emptor.  Grow!!  Grow or die!  We as a nation need to move back toward a fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage.  I’ve had 5-6 30 year old MBA candidates in class tell me and each other “you can fake anything for two years, get your money and run.”  I went ballistic—ruined my ratings.  We’ve become a nation of fakers.  The deal on the table is never the real deal.  In the midst of this, real value delivery not the fake financial “value” seems to have been lost.  What’s the strategy not for the top 100 US companies, what’s the strategy for the US as a nation?  What do we produce?  What value do we add?  Automobiles?  TVs?  Appliances?  Chips?  Sugar water?  Fuel/energy?  Cinema?  Music?  We have a 14 trillion $ economy with a $10 trillion debt load—and rising. 

     

    I think MBAs need either at the beginning or at the end or both of their degree programs a serious hard look at the problems facing their generation and encouragement to think of how their new skills and degree are going to help them solve those problems.  I see way too many MBAs coming in who just want to make a fast fortune by investing and flipping and don’t talk about a career or a life’s work.  

     

    I am, obviously, disturbed by the trend I see.  If our capstone courses would help students identify major issues in their generations and then develop strategies, personal and corporate, for dealing with them, and give them some determination to do so, I think that would be a good thing.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:53 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim and Joop,

     

    Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era.  If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.

     

    My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders.  Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron.  Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone.  What do you think?

     

    George

    /jag 

     

    In a message dated 2/27/2009 11:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU writes:

    I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments.  It seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably intertwined.  We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic Change."  I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings from the peanut gallery, 

       Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488    Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some  may show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action."  They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.  So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary.  The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.  I fell in love with the
    East Coast.  Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California. 

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such.  When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper.  I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper.  Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning.  By golly, I think I will.  For starters:  A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s).  It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months.  It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that.  But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"
     
    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others.  This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > >           "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ.  Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > >         "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >

     

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!



  • 30.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 03-01-2009 20:47
    Wait, Fred, first notice the source of the dictum, then beware of joining
    the Silent Majority.

    How about Democrats, Republicans, Unaligned, and Independents Demonstrating
    Symbiosis, DRUIDS?

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <nickols@att.net>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 10:02 AM
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy


    > Well, darn! I guess we'll have to stop singing "God Bless America" and
    > "America the Beautiful." Our politicians have already started saying "God
    > Bless the United States of America" instead of the older, simpler "God
    > Bless America" so I guess there's been some progress on that front. As
    > for "Norteamericanos" there are so many Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in
    > the United States of America, that term is rapidly losing its meaning. I
    > guess it really gets confusing when you consider African-Americans,
    > Asian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Japanese-Americans and other
    > hyphenated Americans. (Me, I'm from German-American and English-American
    > stock.)
    >
    > Aha! I've got it. By George, I've got it. Given the dictum that one's
    > utterances should offend no one at any time, the solution is obvious: Say
    > nothing.


  • 31.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 03-02-2009 08:34
    Jim and Jack,
     
    Okay, the baby boomers were not our greatest generation in spite of the best seller.  Since the onset of the knowledge era their conversion to cowboy ethics doomed them to thinking they deserved more cattle because of their big bats and big shiny buckles.
     
    When the opportunity to capitalize on a USA principle gone too far by putting people into homes that they could not afford in defiance of the shaky bubble, some greatly expanded their herds.  The old cowboy values are alive and well and being taught to our young.  Cowboy corruption in D.C. and on Wall Street and Main Street will only respect cowboy consequences.  We should not let the black hats go on as heroes.  Where are our white hats?
     
    Our situation is that once our students have almost 20 years of socialization into the cowboy ethics, faculty can have little impact.  Ethics begin with the family, community, school, church, and other socializing organizations.  Let's begin at the beginning to reform.
     
    Wall Street's convicted felons tell me that when the money is yours for the taking and all of our bosses are taking some with little fear of being punished, they finally become cowboys and help themselves.  After being punished they speak out loudly against the cowboy ethics.  Perhaps, these are the stories our children should be reading in the early grades.  Cowboy ethics stories should always conclude with the harmful consequences on innocent widows, orphans and plain folks.  This also applies to Clint's movies.
     
    George Graen
    /jag
     
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I agree that values are paramount, that's why I asked earlier which professors involve their students in axiology. However, I claim that stakeholder values are a factor in selection of Objective far more than in decisions for allocating and scheduling resources to overcome impediments to achieve such objective.
     
    This is being demonstrated before our very eyes, today, in the U.S.  One faction values the destruction of capitalism. A strategy for doing so was published as the Cloward-Piven strategy for deconstructing capitalism, published in the 1960's, thousands of reprints served, taught at Columbia U. and other places.  (One summary is 'overwhelming the bureaucracy with demands it cannot possibly meet thereby branding it as obsolete).
     
    The current administration can be seen as executing to the Cloward-Piven strategy with great skill. There are others, of course, who don't see it that way. However, transparency and oversight won't save the day because 'scorekeeping, can become obsessed with marking the execution while never questioning the viability of the effects of the course of action. Political observers from Machiavelli to George Orwell have told us that.
     
    Sooooo, this nation does have a strategy. It is not the strategy framed in the U.S. Constitution or a strategy that has emerged from dialog but that doesn't matter to a population that was raised on situation ethics and, despite Ben Franklin's warning, thinks they can sustain a behavior of writing themselves a check out of other people's funds. And it won't matter to the next generation, schooled on the principles of community organizing.
     
    I can assure you that youth can be educed into creating a compelling vision in their minds.
    Youth can even be educed into 'checking their work' to determine whether said vision is beneficial.
    Unfortunately youth can even be mis-taught WHICH vision to adopt (think of the kids in Taliban schools rocking to and fro while memorizing another man's values). We must do the first and second or the third will be done to us.
     
    One key is to understand the formation of strategy well enough that we can construct a strategy for arriving at a sustainable objective. The U.S. founding fathers did it once. 'We' must do it again. Sorry but transparency and oversight won't be sufficient.
     
    Onward,
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:42 PM
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    How old does one have to be to be able to say what they think openly?  Is that even possible? 

    We just saw Slumdog Millionaire.  I can't help but thinking that so little has changed since our (human) first recorded writings.  We've spread out over the face of the earth like lemmings or roaches consuming everything in our path with a few living high and most living low.  We tout on the one hand "unalienable rights" yet Mother Nature nor our culture(s) do not grant them to most of the people on the earth.  And, Jack, if there are no values in strategy, if it's just a collection of systems, what good is it? We Americans NEED a national strategy.  Most of the American systems are broken or breaking.  Beginning with Phineas Gage up through Tony Damasio, I think we HAVE to say value comes from within.  I'm moving down a path that has me thinking recently that "character is a vastly overrated concept."  Transparency and oversight seem to be the only answer.  Perhaps there are a few who can envision, who can see beyond today, who build for a future-have our institutions all grown too big that one cannot make a difference?  The second strategy question, where do we want to go, seems so much more important now.  What system can create that?

     

    What's that for you-where you want to go?  For your school?  For your nation?  Are we producing or even encouraging students who can and will envision and create?  Maybe we should go back to Robert Fritz' the Path of Least Resistance and employ the creative process instead of the problem solving one. 

     

    My friends and colleagues, most of whom, I've never met, what do you envision for your students and how they might deal with the issues of their generation?  Can we teach them how to create a compelling vision in their minds?  Do they even care?

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 5:01 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim,

     

    When your students understand Systems 401 then they will know that the strategy for a Nation is simply the conflation of the strategies of the elements of the nation. The nation, legal entity that it is, cannot have strategy.

     

    However, fakers (politicians) by anthropomorphizing 'government' can sell the lie to all those who have not graduated from Systems 101.

     

    All large, complex systems are composed of small successful systems. Pending the latter, all else of simply an apparition called government.

     

    Russell Ackoff's You, Inc. may be an important concept.

     

    Jack Ring

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Clawson, Jim

    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:59 PM

    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    George,

     

    I agree with you-AND I see so many American managers, executives, and executive teams who don't seem to get it.  Global instantaneous communication (the web) has meant that you can't hide margins anymore so yes, as one writer commented, I agree we are slipping worldwide into a homogeneous lukewarm standard of living.  I don't know if that's what you mean by "post-modern".  A big question for me is what does America produce anymore?  It feels to me like we've become a nation of "flip-and-extractors" where the concept of providing on-going, high value added goods and services has left us.  Everyone wants to get a piece.  I'm getting emails almost daily from this or that group (entrepreneurs, associations, universities) all asking how they/we can get their piece of the bailout money.  JEEZ!  THAT's the problem-so many trying to get so much for free!!!  Loopholes, compliance looking for loopholes, trying to find free money, America, in my view, needs to get back to basics:  assumed dependable high quality and differentiating experiences for customers.  I got a Japanese haircut when I was 19 and it ruined me for life.  I've been searching for a similar experience in the US and it's NOT to be found.  America wants more now, and hang tomorrow.  Caveat emptor.  Grow!!  Grow or die!  We as a nation need to move back toward a fair day's work for a fair day's wage.  I've had 5-6 30 year old MBA candidates in class tell me and each other "you can fake anything for two years, get your money and run."  I went ballistic-ruined my ratings.  We've become a nation of fakers.  The deal on the table is never the real deal.  In the midst of this, real value delivery not the fake financial "value" seems to have been lost.  What's the strategy not for the top 100 US companies, what's the strategy for the US as a nation?  What do we produce?  What value do we add?  Automobiles?  TVs?  Appliances?  Chips?  Sugar water?  Fuel/energy?  Cinema?  Music?  We have a 14 trillion $ economy with a $10 trillion debt load-and rising. 

     

    I think MBAs need either at the beginning or at the end or both of their degree programs a serious hard look at the problems facing their generation and encouragement to think of how their new skills and degree are going to help them solve those problems.  I see way too many MBAs coming in who just want to make a fast fortune by investing and flipping and don't talk about a career or a life's work.  

     

    I am, obviously, disturbed by the trend I see.  If our capstone courses would help students identify major issues in their generations and then develop strategies, personal and corporate, for dealing with them, and give them some determination to do so, I think that would be a good thing.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:53 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim and Joop,

     

    Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era.  If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.

     

    My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders.  Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron.  Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone.  What do you think?

     

    George

    /jag 

     

    In a message dated 2/27/2009 11:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU writes:

    I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments.  It seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably intertwined.  We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic Change."  I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings from the peanut gallery, 

       Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488    Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some  may show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action."  They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.  So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary.  The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.  I fell in love with the
    East Coast.  Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California. 

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such.  When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper.  I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper.  Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning.  By golly, I think I will.  For starters:  A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s).  It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months.  It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that.  But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"
     
    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others.  This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > >           "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ.  Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > >         "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    >

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


  • 32.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 03-02-2009 08:38
    Deborah and Jim,
     
    I agree that the current capestone course has become preaching ethics and values to the "greed is good" crowd.  Our Wall Street Crash of 9/11/2008, only reinforced our bright and hungry students as they read about the crazy bonus system.  Why work until you're 65 or 70 to retire?  Why not do it at 25 or 30?  Moreover, why should they listen to their Professor who chose not to become a trader and retire early and rich?
     
    My hope is that benefits of our deep recession will be a return to sanity for Wall Street and corporate compensation.  Our financial bubbles have burst and we are poorer in materials, but we must grow more understanding of a worker being worth his/her hire.  Trading other people's money does not make one a superstar in show business.
     
    I know I take all the fun out of trading.
     
    George
    /jag
     
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     
    I too have been following this discussion and am taking a "strategy" course at the same time. I must concur with the rants and issues, but the question remains: What can or should be done differently to educate and train new managers and organizational governors to do things differently?  

    As educators who have the ability to craft courses and train students and incumbent managers, what are the next steps?

    I am not convinced that the nonprofit world is any better at ethical behavior, but there are different constraints such as the nondistribution of excess revenues to keep some of the problems to a smaller scale.  DEB

    Deborah L Rhodes
    Capella University, doctoral learner
    School of Business and Technology
    Management Education Specialization
    Resident in Tampa, FL


    On 2/28/09 4:44 PM, "Leybourne, Stephen A." <sleyb@BU.EDU> wrote:

    I have been following this discussion for a few days now, and am in absolute agreement with Jim's last 'rant' on the current MBA generation.

    I have only just moved to the US, and taught in the UK before - but the problem is the same everywhere...  There seem to be two main types of MBA programme: either the entrepreural path, where it is absolutely about making your money fast and getting out, or the managerial path, where MBA's are taught to be risk averse, meaning that when they get into the business world, they are taking the least risky option, which often means following the status quo within their organisation.  This kills innovation, and ultimately results in economic decline.

    Unfortunately, risk aversion (in terms of both career and organisational development) means that it is easier to do nothing than to do something that may not be successful in the eyes of the organisation.  We as academics are often setting new MBA's up with confidence in perceived abilities that they just do not have, and won't have without some 'real' business experience.  There is an arrogance inherent in MBA cohorts that is sometimes quite astounding, maybe perpetuated by grade inflation (and don't get me started on that subject !!!).  If these students come out of their MBA programmes with a string of 'A's, they think they know it all...  and that is a real problem.

    Sorry - this is a bit of a 'rant' as well...

    Steve Leybourne

    _________________________________________________

    Dr Steve Leybourne Ph.D
    Metropolitan College
    Boston University
    808 Commonwealth Avenue
    BOSTON, Ma 02215

    Phone:   (617) 358 5626
    Fax:       (617) 353 6840
    Email:    sleyb@bu.edu
    Web:     http://people.bu.edu/sleyb  


     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Clawson, Jim
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 2:59 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    George,
     
    I agree with you-AND I see so many American managers, executives, and executive teams who don't seem to get it.  Global instantaneous communication (the web) has meant that you can't hide margins anymore so yes, as one writer commented, I agree we are slipping worldwide into a homogeneous lukewarm standard of living.  I don't know if that's what you mean by "post-modern".  A big question for me is what does America produce anymore?  It feels to me like we've become a nation of "flip-and-extractors" where the concept of providing on-going, high value added goods and services has left us.  Everyone wants to get a piece.  I'm getting emails almost daily from this or that group (entrepreneurs, associations, universities) all asking how they/we can get their piece of the bailout money.  JEEZ!  THAT's the problem-so many trying to get so much for free!!!  Loopholes, compliance looking for loopholes, trying to find free money, America, in my view, needs to get back to basics:  assumed dependable high quality and differentiating experiences for customers.  I got a Japanese haircut when I was 19 and it ruined me for life.  I've been searching for a similar experience in the US and it's NOT to be found.  America wants more now, and hang tomorrow.  Caveat emptor.  Grow!!  Grow or die!  We as a nation need to move back toward a fair day's work for a fair day's wage.  I've had 5-6 30 year old MBA candidates in class tell me and each other "you can fake anything for two years, get your money and run."  I went ballistic-ruined my ratings.  We've become a nation of fakers.  The deal on the table is never the real deal.  In the midst of this, real value delivery not the fake financial "value" seems to have been lost.  What's the strategy not for the top 100 US companies, what's the strategy for the US as a nation?  What do we produce?  What value do we add?  Automobiles?  TVs?  Appliances?  Chips?  Sugar water?  Fuel/energy?  Cinema?  Music?  We have a 14 trillion $ economy with a $10 trillion debt load-and rising.  
     
    I think MBAs need either at the beginning or at the end or both of their degree programs a serious hard look at the problems facing their generation and encouragement to think of how their new skills and degree are going to help them solve those problems.  I see way too many MBAs coming in who just want to make a fast fortune by investing and flipping and don't talk about a career or a life's work.  
     
    I am, obviously, disturbed by the trend I see.  If our capstone courses would help students identify major issues in their generations and then develop strategies, personal and corporate, for dealing with them, and give them some determination to do so, I think that would be a good thing.
     

      Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906   
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj


    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:53 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy


    Jim and Joop,



    Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era.  If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.



    My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders.  Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron.  Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone.  What do you think?



    George

    /jag



    In a message dated 2/27/2009 11:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU writes:

    I'm  enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments.  It seems  to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably  intertwined.  We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of  analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question  "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go  from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm  thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic  Change."  I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings  from the peanut gallery,  

       Jim
    James G. S.  Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business  Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550,  Charlottesville, VA 22906   
    100 Darden Boulevard,  Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488     Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:   http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

    -----Original  Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion  [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday,  February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re:  Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable  comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with  all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership  as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much  more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has  to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some  may show an example in  this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/  fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of  someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop  Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl  
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl  
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and  Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar  Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan:  MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of  Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also  add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we  do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like  it.

    Dundar  Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar  F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and  Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and  President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon,  97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 -  fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and   http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original  Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development  Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop  Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To:  MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear  colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching,  I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2)  where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might  say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is  my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is  in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality  management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best  regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl  
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl  

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and  Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens  nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan:  MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of  Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and  tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth  some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy,  rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being.  Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years  ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    >  Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy  was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was  'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited  above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action."  They are  quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of  description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses  of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in  Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly  of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time  strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West  Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the  Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and  I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then,  or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much  higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.  So, I envisioned
    a  strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East  that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving  all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the  purchasing power of my East Coast salary.  The strategy worked  as
    envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to Evanston,  Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.   I fell in love with the
    East Coast.  Business was good, I was making  more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to  California.  

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have  to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does  a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such.   When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for  my printer, I am following a
    plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind:  to obtain a ream of paper.  I have
    some actions in mind: getting in  the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other  items as well), and returning home with the
    paper.  Mission  accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its  definitions and
    meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and  inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning.  By golly, I  think I will.  For starters:  A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of  one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s).   It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations,  due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all  optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of  the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The  paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site  for a few years now, not a
    few months.  It gets some minor editing  from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do  that.  But, the basic paper has been out
    there a  while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing  Partner
    Distance Consulting,  LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A  Distance"
      
    -------------- Original message  ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring  <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a  planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy  and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to  notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's  "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted  several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the  
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get  it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the  futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal'  to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one  team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale  Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in  favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he  
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time  than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag  incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage  for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than  others.  This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment)  was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of  action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age  is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not  coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have  failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too  focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must  we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    >  for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    >  Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From:  <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    >  Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of  Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to  Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so  I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > >            "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to  realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some  elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    >  > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action,  with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context  for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As  von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the  enemy."  And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both  concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ.   Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > >  tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As  strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some  
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are  dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never  anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and,  perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent,  evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in  stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might  well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > >  Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > >          "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to  realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For  more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    >  > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to  
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    >  >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred  Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting,  LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    >  >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > >  -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack  Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily,  start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result'  is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    >  >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about  learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim  is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >>  there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    >  >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >>  cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


  • 33.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 03-02-2009 10:22
    Yea, verily.
    Installing Values is best done at the pre-teen level.
    Meanwhile, cannot MBA professors devise a Shared Values facet to the Enterprise Scorecard that will at least reveal some of the extant values? Also, should they be taught that the BoD should be challenged to assay these extant values?
    Can we smart enough to automate whistle blowing?
    Jack
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 6:33 AM
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jim and Jack,
     
    Okay, the baby boomers were not our greatest generation in spite of the best seller.  Since the onset of the knowledge era their conversion to cowboy ethics doomed them to thinking they deserved more cattle because of their big bats and big shiny buckles.
     
    When the opportunity to capitalize on a USA principle gone too far by putting people into homes that they could not afford in defiance of the shaky bubble, some greatly expanded their herds.  The old cowboy values are alive and well and being taught to our young.  Cowboy corruption in D.C. and on Wall Street and Main Street will only respect cowboy consequences.  We should not let the black hats go on as heroes.  Where are our white hats?
     
    Our situation is that once our students have almost 20 years of socialization into the cowboy ethics, faculty can have little impact.  Ethics begin with the family, community, school, church, and other socializing organizations.  Let's begin at the beginning to reform.
     
    Wall Street's convicted felons tell me that when the money is yours for the taking and all of our bosses are taking some with little fear of being punished, they finally become cowboys and help themselves.  After being punished they speak out loudly against the cowboy ethics.  Perhaps, these are the stories our children should be reading in the early grades.  Cowboy ethics stories should always conclude with the harmful consequences on innocent widows, orphans and plain folks.  This also applies to Clint's movies.
     
    George Graen
    /jag
     
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I agree that values are paramount, that's why I asked earlier which professors involve their students in axiology. However, I claim that stakeholder values are a factor in selection of Objective far more than in decisions for allocating and scheduling resources to overcome impediments to achieve such objective.
     
    This is being demonstrated before our very eyes, today, in the U.S.  One faction values the destruction of capitalism. A strategy for doing so was published as the Cloward-Piven strategy for deconstructing capitalism, published in the 1960's, thousands of reprints served, taught at Columbia U. and other places.  (One summary is 'overwhelming the bureaucracy with demands it cannot possibly meet thereby branding it as obsolete).
     
    The current administration can be seen as executing to the Cloward-Piven strategy with great skill. There are others, of course, who don't see it that way. However, transparency and oversight won't save the day because 'scorekeeping, can become obsessed with marking the execution while never questioning the viability of the effects of the course of action. Political observers from Machiavelli to George Orwell have told us that.
     
    Sooooo, this nation does have a strategy. It is not the strategy framed in the U.S. Constitution or a strategy that has emerged from dialog but that doesn't matter to a population that was raised on situation ethics and, despite Ben Franklin's warning, thinks they can sustain a behavior of writing themselves a check out of other people's funds. And it won't matter to the next generation, schooled on the principles of community organizing.
     
    I can assure you that youth can be educed into creating a compelling vision in their minds.
    Youth can even be educed into 'checking their work' to determine whether said vision is beneficial.
    Unfortunately youth can even be mis-taught WHICH vision to adopt (think of the kids in Taliban schools rocking to and fro while memorizing another man's values). We must do the first and second or the third will be done to us.
     
    One key is to understand the formation of strategy well enough that we can construct a strategy for arriving at a sustainable objective. The U.S. founding fathers did it once. 'We' must do it again. Sorry but transparency and oversight won't be sufficient.
     
    Onward,
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:42 PM
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    How old does one have to be to be able to say what they think openly?  Is that even possible? 

    We just saw Slumdog Millionaire.  I can't help but thinking that so little has changed since our (human) first recorded writings.  We've spread out over the face of the earth like lemmings or roaches consuming everything in our path with a few living high and most living low.  We tout on the one hand "unalienable rights" yet Mother Nature nor our culture(s) do not grant them to most of the people on the earth.  And, Jack, if there are no values in strategy, if it's just a collection of systems, what good is it? We Americans NEED a national strategy.  Most of the American systems are broken or breaking.  Beginning with Phineas Gage up through Tony Damasio, I think we HAVE to say value comes from within.  I'm moving down a path that has me thinking recently that "character is a vastly overrated concept."  Transparency and oversight seem to be the only answer.  Perhaps there are a few who can envision, who can see beyond today, who build for a future-have our institutions all grown too big that one cannot make a difference?  The second strategy question, where do we want to go, seems so much more important now.  What system can create that?

     

    What's that for you-where you want to go?  For your school?  For your nation?  Are we producing or even encouraging students who can and will envision and create?  Maybe we should go back to Robert Fritz' the Path of Least Resistance and employ the creative process instead of the problem solving one. 

     

    My friends and colleagues, most of whom, I've never met, what do you envision for your students and how they might deal with the issues of their generation?  Can we teach them how to create a compelling vision in their minds?  Do they even care?

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 5:01 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim,

     

    When your students understand Systems 401 then they will know that the strategy for a Nation is simply the conflation of the strategies of the elements of the nation. The nation, legal entity that it is, cannot have strategy.

     

    However, fakers (politicians) by anthropomorphizing 'government' can sell the lie to all those who have not graduated from Systems 101.

     

    All large, complex systems are composed of small successful systems. Pending the latter, all else of simply an apparition called government.

     

    Russell Ackoff's You, Inc. may be an important concept.

     

    Jack Ring

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Clawson, Jim

    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:59 PM

    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    George,

     

    I agree with you-AND I see so many American managers, executives, and executive teams who don't seem to get it.  Global instantaneous communication (the web) has meant that you can't hide margins anymore so yes, as one writer commented, I agree we are slipping worldwide into a homogeneous lukewarm standard of living.  I don't know if that's what you mean by "post-modern".  A big question for me is what does America produce anymore?  It feels to me like we've become a nation of "flip-and-extractors" where the concept of providing on-going, high value added goods and services has left us.  Everyone wants to get a piece.  I'm getting emails almost daily from this or that group (entrepreneurs, associations, universities) all asking how they/we can get their piece of the bailout money.  JEEZ!  THAT's the problem-so many trying to get so much for free!!!  Loopholes, compliance looking for loopholes, trying to find free money, America, in my view, needs to get back to basics:  assumed dependable high quality and differentiating experiences for customers.  I got a Japanese haircut when I was 19 and it ruined me for life.  I've been searching for a similar experience in the US and it's NOT to be found.  America wants more now, and hang tomorrow.  Caveat emptor.  Grow!!  Grow or die!  We as a nation need to move back toward a fair day's work for a fair day's wage.  I've had 5-6 30 year old MBA candidates in class tell me and each other "you can fake anything for two years, get your money and run."  I went ballistic-ruined my ratings.  We've become a nation of fakers.  The deal on the table is never the real deal.  In the midst of this, real value delivery not the fake financial "value" seems to have been lost.  What's the strategy not for the top 100 US companies, what's the strategy for the US as a nation?  What do we produce?  What value do we add?  Automobiles?  TVs?  Appliances?  Chips?  Sugar water?  Fuel/energy?  Cinema?  Music?  We have a 14 trillion $ economy with a $10 trillion debt load-and rising. 

     

    I think MBAs need either at the beginning or at the end or both of their degree programs a serious hard look at the problems facing their generation and encouragement to think of how their new skills and degree are going to help them solve those problems.  I see way too many MBAs coming in who just want to make a fast fortune by investing and flipping and don't talk about a career or a life's work.  

     

    I am, obviously, disturbed by the trend I see.  If our capstone courses would help students identify major issues in their generations and then develop strategies, personal and corporate, for dealing with them, and give them some determination to do so, I think that would be a good thing.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:53 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

     

    Jim and Joop,

     

    Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era.  If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.

     

    My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders.  Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron.  Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone.  What do you think?

     

    George

    /jag 

     

    In a message dated 2/27/2009 11:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU writes:

    I'm enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments.  It seems to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably intertwined.  We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic Change."  I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings from the peanut gallery, 

       Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488    Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some  may show an example in this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/ fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like it.

    Dundar Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 - fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and  http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching, I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2) where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy, rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being. Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    > Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was 'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action."  They are quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then, or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.  So, I envisioned
    a strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the purchasing power of my East Coast salary.  The strategy worked as
    envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to Evanston, Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.  I fell in love with the
    East Coast.  Business was good, I was making more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to California. 

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such.  When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for my printer, I am following a
    plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind: to obtain a ream of paper.  I have
    some actions in mind: getting in the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other items as well), and returning home with the
    paper.  Mission accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its definitions and
    meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning.  By golly, I think I will.  For starters:  A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s).  It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations, due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site for a few years now, not a
    few months.  It gets some minor editing from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do that.  But, the basic paper has been out
    there a while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"
     
    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal' to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than others.  This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment) was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    > for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > >           "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    > > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action, with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the enemy."  And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ.  Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > > tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and, perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent, evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > > Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > >         "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    > > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    > >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily, start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result' is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    > >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >> there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    > >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >> cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    >

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


  • 34.  Definition of Strategy

    Posted 03-03-2009 09:31

    Colleagues,

     

    I am pleased and relieved to witness these robust MED-List exchanges of views on a matter central to our work. Deborah's question hits home.  What can or should be done differently to educate and train new managers and organizational governors to do things differently?   It is time to be probing deeply into our own assumptions as management educators, for learners are looking at us and to us for signs of new understandings. 

     

    To this end, I invite members of this List to join an OBTS Webinar to be held on Friday, March 13.  Row Lewicki, of Ohio State, will engage online-participants in an hour-long focus on this topic:  Teaching Management in these Troubling Times. I will be moderating this webinar.   Use this link for more details and to register:   http://www.obtc.org/webinars/

     

    Please share this link with your colleagues.  We have much to learn with each other.  And by the way, it is free.

     

    Best to all,

     

    David

     

    David S. Fearon, Sr, PhD
    Professor of Management
    Management and Organization Department
    School of Business
    Central Connecticut State University
    New Britain, CT 06050
    Office: 860 832 3280
    Cell: 860 983 5779

     

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:38 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Definition of Strategy

     

    Deborah and Jim,

     

    I agree that the current capestone course has become preaching ethics and values to the "greed is good" crowd.  Our Wall Street Crash of 9/11/2008, only reinforced our bright and hungry students as they read about the crazy bonus system.  Why work until you're 65 or 70 to retire?  Why not do it at 25 or 30?  Moreover, why should they listen to their Professor who chose not to become a trader and retire early and rich?

     

    My hope is that benefits of our deep recession will be a return to sanity for Wall Street and corporate compensation.  Our financial bubbles have burst and we are poorer in materials, but we must grow more understanding of a worker being worth his/her hire.  Trading other people's money does not make one a superstar in show business.

     

    I know I take all the fun out of trading.

     

    George

    /jag

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     

    I too have been following this discussion and am taking a "strategy" course at the same time. I must concur with the rants and issues, but the question remains: What can or should be done differently to educate and train new managers and organizational governors to do things differently?  

    As educators who have the ability to craft courses and train students and incumbent managers, what are the next steps?

    I am not convinced that the nonprofit world is any better at ethical behavior, but there are different constraints such as the nondistribution of excess revenues to keep some of the problems to a smaller scale.  DEB

    Deborah L Rhodes
    Capella University, doctoral learner
    School of Business and Technology
    Management Education Specialization
    Resident in Tampa, FL


    On 2/28/09 4:44 PM, "Leybourne, Stephen A." <sleyb@BU.EDU> wrote:

    I have been following this discussion for a few days now, and am in absolute agreement with Jim's last 'rant' on the current MBA generation.

    I have only just moved to the US, and taught in the UK before - but the problem is the same everywhere...  There seem to be two main types of MBA programme: either the entrepreural path, where it is absolutely about making your money fast and getting out, or the managerial path, where MBA's are taught to be risk averse, meaning that when they get into the business world, they are taking the least risky option, which often means following the status quo within their organisation.  This kills innovation, and ultimately results in economic decline.

    Unfortunately, risk aversion (in terms of both career and organisational development) means that it is easier to do nothing than to do something that may not be successful in the eyes of the organisation.  We as academics are often setting new MBA's up with confidence in perceived abilities that they just do not have, and won't have without some 'real' business experience.  There is an arrogance inherent in MBA cohorts that is sometimes quite astounding, maybe perpetuated by grade inflation (and don't get me started on that subject !!!).  If these students come out of their MBA programmes with a string of 'A's, they think they know it all...  and that is a real problem.

    Sorry - this is a bit of a 'rant' as well...

    Steve Leybourne

    _________________________________________________

    Dr Steve Leybourne Ph.D
    Metropolitan College
    Boston University
    808 Commonwealth Avenue
    BOSTON, Ma 02215

    Phone:   (617) 358 5626
    Fax:       (617) 353 6840
    Email:    sleyb@bu.edu
    Web:     http://people.bu.edu/sleyb  


     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Clawson, Jim
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 2:59 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    George,
     
    I agree with you-AND I see so many American managers, executives, and executive teams who don't seem to get it.  Global instantaneous communication (the web) has meant that you can't hide margins anymore so yes, as one writer commented, I agree we are slipping worldwide into a homogeneous lukewarm standard of living.  I don't know if that's what you mean by "post-modern".  A big question for me is what does America produce anymore?  It feels to me like we've become a nation of "flip-and-extractors" where the concept of providing on-going, high value added goods and services has left us.  Everyone wants to get a piece.  I'm getting emails almost daily from this or that group (entrepreneurs, associations, universities) all asking how they/we can get their piece of the bailout money.  JEEZ!  THAT's the problem-so many trying to get so much for free!!!  Loopholes, compliance looking for loopholes, trying to find free money, America, in my view, needs to get back to basics:  assumed dependable high quality and differentiating experiences for customers.  I got a Japanese haircut when I was 19 and it ruined me for life.  I've been searching for a similar experience in the US and it's NOT to be found.  America wants more now, and hang tomorrow.  Caveat emptor.  Grow!!  Grow or die!  We as a nation need to move back toward a fair day's work for a fair day's wage.  I've had 5-6 30 year old MBA candidates in class tell me and each other "you can fake anything for two years, get your money and run."  I went ballistic-ruined my ratings.  We've become a nation of fakers.  The deal on the table is never the real deal.  In the midst of this, real value delivery not the fake financial "value" seems to have been lost.  What's the strategy not for the top 100 US companies, what's the strategy for the US as a nation?  What do we produce?  What value do we add?  Automobiles?  TVs?  Appliances?  Chips?  Sugar water?  Fuel/energy?  Cinema?  Music?  We have a 14 trillion $ economy with a $10 trillion debt load-and rising.  
     
    I think MBAs need either at the beginning or at the end or both of their degree programs a serious hard look at the problems facing their generation and encouragement to think of how their new skills and degree are going to help them solve those problems.  I see way too many MBAs coming in who just want to make a fast fortune by investing and flipping and don't talk about a career or a life's work.  
     
    I am, obviously, disturbed by the trend I see.  If our capstone courses would help students identify major issues in their generations and then develop strategies, personal and corporate, for dealing with them, and give them some determination to do so, I think that would be a good thing.
     

      Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906   
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj


    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:53 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy


    Jim and Joop,



    Thanks for getting us back to the original question about the future of our capestone business courses: How do we design these courses for the onsetting knowledge era.  If we watch our post-modern concept of a business and how to make it fly crashing around us and our students, we should recognize the need for new and more appropriate designs for the aftermath of the 9/11/2008 crash and consequent recession.



    My suggestions are packaged under the concept of "game-changing designs" which require constructing and sustaining a knowledge-driven corporation using much more of the creative thinking and leadership of all stakeholders.  Our dominant games for businesses have not kept up with the incredible explosion of knowledge, i.e., "company secret" has become an oxymoron.  Our major impediment to considering such a change is our fear of going the way of the outdated concept of capestone.  What do you think?



    George

    /jag



    In a message dated 2/27/2009 11:52:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU writes:


    I'm  enjoying this conversation despite the sometimes edgy comments.  It seems  to me that leadership, strategy, and managing change are inextricably  intertwined.  We may break it/them down into pieces for the sake of  analysis and teaching, but leaders (not managers) must answer the question  "leadership to what end?" and that leads us to strategy and since we must go  from here to there that implies leading/managing change, so in fact, I'm  thinking our courses should be more accurately titled "Leading Strategic  Change."  I believe they are overlapping Venn diagrams.

    Musings  from the peanut gallery,  

       Jim
    James G. S.  Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business  Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550,  Charlottesville, VA 22906   
    100 Darden Boulevard,  Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA
    Tel:  434 924 7488     Fax:  434 243 7680
    Web:   http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

    -----Original  Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion  [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop Remme
    Sent: Thursday,  February 26, 2009 6:09 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re:  Definition of Strategy

    Dear Dundar,

    Thank you for your valuable  comment. It connects strategy with leadership.
    I am sometimes worried with  all the interest on leadership, thinking that
    some people treat leadership  as grooming a saviour, especially in these
    troubled times, while I am much  more inclined to think that leadership has
    to mean that each individual has  to take his or her responsibility, albeit
    some  may show an example in  this. From this perspective, strategy becomes
    partly a matter of a fight/  fright choice: decide over your collective
    future or be the victim of  someone else's decisions.

    Best regards,

    Joop  Remmé
    0654761087
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl  
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl  
    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and  Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens Dundar  Kocaoglu
    Verzonden: donderdag 26 februari 2009 0:28
    Aan:  MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of  Strategy

    Joop:

    I define strategy in a very similar way. I also  add that we develop strategy
    to design a future to our liking because if we  do not do it, somebody else
    will do it for us, and we will not like  it.

    Dundar  Kocaoglu


    ===========================================================


    Dundar  F. Kocaoglu, PhD;  Fellow, IEEE
    Professor and  Chairman, Department of Engineering and Technology Management
    and  President and CEO, PICMET
    Portland State University, Portland, Oregon,  97207-0751, USA

    +1 503-725-4660 - office
    +1 503-725-4667 -  fax
    http://www.etm.pdx.edu/  and   http://www.picmet.org/
    ============================================================


    -----Original  Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development  Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joop  Remme
    Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:35 PM
    To:  MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of Strategy

    Dear  colleagues,

    Allow me to contribute my two cents.

    In my teaching,  I define strategy as answering three questions:
    1) where are we?
    2)  where do we want to go?
    3) how are we going to get there?

    You might  say that dealing with these questions in the right order (it is  my
    impressions that often they are mixed to a point of total confusion) is  in
    fact a way of being, comparable perhaps to kai-zen in quality  management.

    Of course, I welcome all comments.

    Best  regards,

    Joop Remmé
    remme@knowdialogue.nl
    remme@msm.nl  
    www.knowdialogue.nl
    www.synmind.nl
    www.msm.nl  

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: Management Education and  Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] Namens  nickols@att.net
    Verzonden: woensdag 25 februari 2009 22:17
    Aan:  MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Onderwerp: Re: Definition of  Strategy

    Jack Ring points to a "fine line" I draw between strategy and  tactics.
    There is another fine line in Jack's post and it's well worth  some
    attention.

    Jack writes in part:

    > Suppose strategy,  rather than declaring a course of action, declares a way

    > of being.  Suppose tactics are process while strategy is tenets.
    >
    > Years  ago a clear distinction between the Green Bay Packers and Dallas
    >  Cowboys was their respective strategies. Vince Lomabardi's strategy  was
    'hit
    > them where they are strongest' whereas Tom Landry's was  'confuse them
    (with
    > variety).'

    The two strategies cited  above qualify in my way of thinking as "courses of
    action."  They are  quite broad and no doubt took various forms at more
    specific levels of  description and in various forms of execution, but I view
    them as courses  of action nonetheless. They are what some call "grand
    strategies" (as in  Winston Churchill's preferred strategy in WWII of
    "attacking the underbelly  of Europe (i.e., Sicily and Italy).

    Another example is a one-time  strategy of mine: "Work my way East then
    leapfrog back to the West  Coast."  That strategy tied to 1974 and my
    retirement from the  Navy.  My exiting pay as a Chief Petty Officer was $720
    per month and  I was desirous of ramping up my income as quickly as possible.
    Back then,  or so I believed at the time, the cost of living (and salaries)
    were much  higher on the East Coast than on the West Coast.  So, I envisioned
    a  strategy of obtaining a series of jobs/engagements moving from West to
    East  that would enable me to make my way to the East Coast and once there
    moving  all the way back to California (at the same salary), thus ratcheting
    up the  purchasing power of my East Coast salary.  The strategy worked  as
    envisioned - to a point.  I went from San Diego to Evanston,  Illinois to
    Bethesda, MD.  Once there, however, things changed.   I fell in love with the
    East Coast.  Business was good, I was making  more money than I ever
    imagined, and I no longer wanted to go back to  California.  

    My point is that a "course of action" doesn't have  to be spelled out in
    excruciating detail to quality as such.  Nor does  a plan have to fill
    several three-ring binders to qualify as such.   When I head out to Office
    Depot or Staples to pick up a ream of paper for  my printer, I am following a
    plan.  I have a goal, an object in mind:  to obtain a ream of paper.  I have
    some actions in mind: getting in  the car, driving to Staples, purchasing the
    paper (and perhaps some other  items as well), and returning home with the
    paper.  Mission  accomplished.

    Jack mentioned that he enjoyed my piece on strategy, its  definitions and
    meanings.  So did a CEO who sent me an email and  inquired if I might do the
    same for plans and planning.  By golly, I  think I will.  For starters:  A
    plan, at its simplest, consist of  one or more goals and some actions
    intended to achieve the goal(s).   It doesn't even have to be written down.
    Schedules, resource allocations,  due dates, deliverables, assignments and
    evaluations are all  optional.  It all depends on the scope and scale of  the
    effort.

    Finally, one minor correction to Jack's post:  The  paper on strategy, its
    definitions and meanings, has been on my web site  for a few years now, not a
    few months.  It gets some minor editing  from time to time and I update the
    copyright notice whenever I do  that.  But, the basic paper has been out
    there a  while.


    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing  Partner
    Distance Consulting,  LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A  Distance"
      
    -------------- Original message  ----------------------
    From: Jack Ring  <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    >
    > Fred's declaration of strategy as 'a  planned course of action' puts a
    rather
    > fine line between strategy  and tactics, perhaps a line that students are
    not
    > prepared to  notice, let alone appreciate.
    >
    > Since enjoying Fred's  "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings" when it was
    first
    > posted  several months ago, I have been interested in how to communicate
    the  
    > essence to those not yet imbued with sufficient experience to 'get  it'
    > viscerally (aka' deep learning).
    >
    >
    > On the  futbol pitch, we often see the strategy change from 'score goal'  to

    > 'retain possession' especially when time is running out and one  team is
    > ahead in goals scored.
    >
    > In NASCAR, Dale  Earnhardt's engines sacrificed maximum horsepower at peak
    > RPM in  favor of more HP in at approximately 80% of peak RPM. This because
    he  
    > could accelerate from yellow flag lap speed to top speed in less time  than

    > could the other configurations. Given 7 or so yellow flag  incidences per
    > race that gave him a built-in one to two lap advantage  for the whole race
    > even though his top speed was a little lower than  others.  This allocation

    > of 'resource' to demand (impediment)  was not a course of action but a way
    of
    > being during the course of  action.
    >
    > The essence of Dee Hock's Birth of the Chaordic Age  is the Principles by
    > which members agree to abide. These are not  coursed of action but ways of
    > being. In fact many organizations have  failed when attempting the chaordic

    > way because they are too  focused on Being to put enough energy into Doing.
    >
    > What must  we BE and DO in order to create a sufficient leaning environment

    >  for students (of all ages) to 'get' strategy?
    >
    > cheers,
    >  Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From:  <nickols@att.net>
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    >  Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:41 AM
    > Subject: Definition of  Strategy
    >
    >
    > >I never did get around to responding to  Jack Ring's request for a
    succinct
    > >definition of strategy so  I'll take a shot at it now:
    > >
    > >            "Strategy is a planned course of action intended to  realize an

    > > objective."
    > >
    > > Now for some  elaboration:  Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap

    >  > between ends and means.  Both are concerned with courses of action,  with

    > > getting from here to there. Strategy forms the context  for tactics and
    > > tactics informs strategy as to reality.  As  von Moltke observed, "No
    > > battle plan survives contact with the  enemy."  And, of course, strategy
    > > and tactics are both  concerned with resources - but here their concerns
    > > differ.   Strategy is concerned with the "deployment" of resources and
    > >  tactics is concerned with their "employment."
    > >
    > > As  strategy unfolds, which is to say as the plan is put into action,
    some  
    > > the "impediments" Jack mentioned turn out to be real and are  dealt with;

    > > some never appear; and some that were never  anticipated crop up and
    > > require an adjustment in tactics and,  perhaps, in strategy as well.
    > > Strategy, then, is an emergent,  evolving course of action, not one that
    is
    > > chiseled in  stone.  The same is true of tactics.
    > >
    > > One might  well ask about the difference between strategy and tactics.
    > >  Consider the following definition of tactics:
    > >
    > >          "Tactics are those plans and actions intended to  realize a
    > > strategy."
    > >
    > >
    > > For  more in this vein, there is a paper on my articles web site titled
    >  > "Strategy: Definitions and Meanings."  If you care to read it, go to  
    > > www.skullworks.com and click on the link to Strategy.
    >  >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Fred  Nickols
    > > Managing Partner
    > > Distance Consulting,  LLC
    > > nickols@att.net
    > > www.nickols.us
    >  >
    > > "Assistance at A Distance"
    > >
    > >  -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > > From: Jack  Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
    > >>
    > >> Yea, verily,  start with the end in mind.
    > >> However, I suggest that 'result'  is equivalent to objective. Kim
    didn''t
    > >> ask
    >  >> about pedagogy regarding choosing objectives. He asked about  learning
    to
    > >> craft
    > >> strategy which I claim  is equivalent to the act of supposing how to get

    > >>  there
    > >> (what impediments thus what resources, when).
    >  >> Or maybe not.  Anyway, thanks for the response.
    > >>  cheers,
    > >> Jack Ring
    > >

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!



  • 35.  Definition of strategy

    Posted 03-06-2009 04:33

    [Sorry for cross-posting]

     

    Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion, I have learned a lot.

     

    I still see no defence against the two main charges – that strategy research to seek explanations for profitability ratios is simply asking the wrong question, and that a focus on positioning choices misses most of what strategic management does – the result of these two failings being that we have little useful theory and few useful tools for the task. If this is plain wrong, I guess we all need to know.

     

    I have tried to explain both issues, with well known examples, in a new textbook opening at http://www.kimwarren.com/files/SMDExtendedOpening.pdf. Anyone who prefers listening to reading can find a slide-show on What is Strategy at http://strategydynamics.coggno.com/ [note no 'www.' , and please forgive the plug at the end for my own stuff]. These are aimed at new-comers to the subject, so sorry for the simple language.

                                                                                                                                            

    One last concern about our strategy frameworks ... A focus on profitability, cash-flows or any other financial performance measure is not likely to help much with the strategic management of public services, voluntary groups or other non-profit organizations – a significant failure since such organizations make up a very large fraction of every modern economy.  But perhaps these organizations share at least one concern with for-profit corporations - a need for continuous strategic management over time, in order to improve some measure of performance, even if that measure is not financial. This is also touched on in the document above.  

     

    Kim Warren

     



  • 36.  Definition of strategy

    Posted 03-06-2009 08:11
    Kim,
     
    I'm afraid that you are arguing against outdated strategic protocols.  Our present and likely future environment for corporations is filled with discontinuous challenges that may come from many new and unattended sources.  Corporation's past knowledge has become invalid, e.g., understanding of profitability ratios and positioning choices.  What is needed is an appropriate game-changing design to support rapid adaptation to new and unexpected challenges.
     
    Let's be clear about Lafely's intentions.  He seeks knowledge about any potential competitor's SWOT.  His is a predictor who uses game-changing designs.  Any corporation where Lafely finds his game-changing opportunity is fair game.  So to teach our CEOs to worry about profit ratios and positioning questions, may be leading them to become lunch for a CEO with a game-changing design.  What do you think?
     
    George Graen
    Editor, Game-Changing Designs (2009)

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!


  • 37.  Definition of strategy

    Posted 03-06-2009 09:17
    Kim:

    FWIW, I spent a dozen years in a large non-profit and some of that time was spent as head of strategic planning and management services. There, strategy tied to mission, not profits. I assume there would be a similar focus on mission in government agencies. That said, "position" did play a role. And, also FWIW, there are different kinds of non-profits (based on the way they obtain their funding and the nature of their governance system). Mine was what is called an "entrepreneurial" non-profit, which means it obtained its funding through the sale of goods and services. Because it was a non-profit and could not sell stock to raise capital, it had to obtain capital funding through loans, bonds, and retained earnings (i.e., net income over and above expenses). Retained earnings also went into its "invested reserves" and this, too, was used for capital funding. So, while profit for profit's sake might not be an issue in most non-profits, income in excess of expenses is very much on everyone's mind.

    I look forward to reading your document.

    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Kim Warren <Kim@STRATEGYDYNAMICS.COM>
    >

    >
    > One last concern about our strategy frameworks ... A focus on
    > profitability, cash-flows or any other financial performance measure is
    > not likely to help much with the strategic management of public
    > services, voluntary groups or other non-profit organizations - a
    > significant failure since such organizations make up a very large
    > fraction of every modern economy. But perhaps these organizations share
    > at least one concern with for-profit corporations - a need for
    > continuous strategic management over time, in order to improve some
    > measure of performance, even if that measure is not financial. This is
    > also touched on in the document above.


  • 38.  Definition of strategy

    Posted 03-06-2009 10:57

    Thanks George – I don't deny the value in some cases of seeking game-changing strategies, but once you have found one, what do you do for the next 1, 2, 5, 10 years ... keep changing your mind? I have designed novel strategies in practice, but once that was done came the intensely challenging task of designing the system to implement, drive and steer its development – some of those strategies are now over 20 years old and still going strong, and many other well-known examples have had similarly long lives.

    I can see that for some organizations in some sectors, rapid change offers both frequent threats to existing business models and opportunities for new ones, but not for most firms at most times. And even where it does arise, every such shift is followed by the tough but vital task of making it happen over subsequent years, and doing so more powerfully than others.

     

    Kim

     

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: 06 March 2009 13:11
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of strategy

     

    Kim,

     

    I'm afraid that you are arguing against outdated strategic protocols.  Our present and likely future environment for corporations is filled with discontinuous challenges that may come from many new and unattended sources.  Corporation's past knowledge has become invalid, e.g., understanding of profitability ratios and positioning choices.  What is needed is an appropriate game-changing design to support rapid adaptation to new and unexpected challenges.

     

    Let's be clear about Lafely's intentions.  He seeks knowledge about any potential competitor's SWOT.  His is a predictor who uses game-changing designs.  Any corporation where Lafely finds his game-changing opportunity is fair game.  So to teach our CEOs to worry about profit ratios and positioning questions, may be leading them to become lunch for a CEO with a game-changing design.  What do you think?

     

    George Graen

    Editor, Game-Changing Designs (2009)

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!



  • 39.  Definition of strategy

    Posted 03-06-2009 11:04
    Kim,
     
    Thanks so much for your chapter intro.  Ever since this thread started, I've wondered what "positioning" was.  Coming out of marketing, "positioning" has been about perceptions.  Positioning is a strategy for changing current perceptions (market position) into desired perceptions (desired position).
     
    I like your perspective, and will add it to my dictionary, with citation..
     
    When I later realized the fundamental nature of brand promises (value promises), I reduced focus on positioning.  It always felt ... incomplete.
     
    Conversation on a different listserv taught me a powerful lesson.  Instead of making a value promise, make and keep many promises.  What you would call your position.  The result for me was definition of 25 decisions I already help clients develop.
        16 for Identity, 4 for Strategy, and 5 for Culture. 
        I think of it as a gestalt.  A whole made of whole parts.
     
    Those decisions become important inside the business and out in markets when management clearly chooses to honor them.  That is, when the business as a whole makes visible promises and then takes visible action to deliver the promises.
     
    The key to success is not so much the decisions, but how the promises are met.
     
    Best,
     
    Gary
     
     

    ...........................................

    Gary Lundquist

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources for Innovation

    303-840-9929 

    ...........................................

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

      Innovation of Business and

      the Business of Innovation™  

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Kim Warren
    Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 2:33 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Definition of strategy

    [Sorry for cross-posting]

     

    Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion, I have learned a lot.

     

    I still see no defence against the two main charges – that strategy research to seek explanations for profitability ratios is simply asking the wrong question, and that a focus on positioning choices misses most of what strategic management does – the result of these two failings being that we have little useful theory and few useful tools for the task. If this is plain wrong, I guess we all need to know.

     

    I have tried to explain both issues, with well known examples, in a new textbook opening at http://www.kimwarren.com/files/SMDExtendedOpening.pdf. Anyone who prefers listening to reading can find a slide-show on What is Strategy at http://strategydynamics.coggno.com/ [note no 'www.' , and please forgive the plug at the end for my own stuff]. These are aimed at new-comers to the subject, so sorry for the simple language.

                                                                                                                                            

    One last concern about our strategy frameworks ... A focus on profitability, cash-flows or any other financial performance measure is not likely to help much with the strategic management of public services, voluntary groups or other non-profit organizations – a significant failure since such organizations make up a very large fraction of every modern economy.  But perhaps these organizations share at least one concern with for-profit corporations - a need for continuous strategic management over time, in order to improve some measure of performance, even if that measure is not financial. This is also touched on in the document above.  

     

    Kim Warren

     



  • 40.  Definition of strategy

    Posted 03-06-2009 11:16
    To add my two cents, I too served as a senior manager in a similar 501(c)6 as Fred describes. We were very serious about "net contribution to reserves" (read: profit). This is a very good thing for even social enterprises need to diversify their funding sources to include earned income. Otherwise they cannot remain sustainable.
    Cheers,
    Ramon Jose Venero
    Nova Southeastern University
    Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

    -----Original Message-----
    From: "nickols@att.net" <nickols@att.net>

    Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:17:14
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Subject: Re: Definition of strategy


    Kim:

    FWIW, I spent a dozen years in a large non-profit and some of that time was spent as head of strategic planning and management services. There, strategy tied to mission, not profits. I assume there would be a similar focus on mission in government agencies. That said, "position" did play a role. And, also FWIW, there are different kinds of non-profits (based on the way they obtain their funding and the nature of their governance system). Mine was what is called an "entrepreneurial" non-profit, which means it obtained its funding through the sale of goods and services. Because it was a non-profit and could not sell stock to raise capital, it had to obtain capital funding through loans, bonds, and retained earnings (i.e., net income over and above expenses). Retained earnings also went into its "invested reserves" and this, too, was used for capital funding. So, while profit for profit's sake might not be an issue in most non-profits, income in excess of expenses is very much on everyone's mind.

    I look forward to reading your document.

    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Kim Warren <Kim@STRATEGYDYNAMICS.COM>
    >

    >
    > One last concern about our strategy frameworks ... A focus on
    > profitability, cash-flows or any other financial performance measure is
    > not likely to help much with the strategic management of public
    > services, voluntary groups or other non-profit organizations - a
    > significant failure since such organizations make up a very large
    > fraction of every modern economy. But perhaps these organizations share
    > at least one concern with for-profit corporations - a need for
    > continuous strategic management over time, in order to improve some
    > measure of performance, even if that measure is not financial. This is
    > also touched on in the document above.


  • 41.  Definition of strategy

    Posted 03-06-2009 15:51
    So does positioning boil down to deciding what promises to make with respect to the market, then designing the systems so that the promises are consistently kept?

    Carolyn J. Fausnaugh PhD, CPA
    Asst Professor of Strategy & New Ventures
    Florida Institute of Technology
    Melbourne, Florida 32901
    Phone: 321-674-7375; Fax: 321-674-8896
    E-mail: cfausnau@fit.edu

    ________________________________

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Kim Warren
    Sent: Fri 3/6/2009 10:56 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of strategy



    Thanks George - I don't deny the value in some cases of seeking game-changing strategies, but once you have found one, what do you do for the next 1, 2, 5, 10 years ... keep changing your mind? I have designed novel strategies in practice, but once that was done came the intensely challenging task of designing the system to implement, drive and steer its development - some of those strategies are now over 20 years old and still going strong, and many other well-known examples have had similarly long lives.

    I can see that for some organizations in some sectors, rapid change offers both frequent threats to existing business models and opportunities for new ones, but not for most firms at most times. And even where it does arise, every such shift is followed by the tough but vital task of making it happen over subsequent years, and doing so more powerfully than others.



    Kim





    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: 06 March 2009 13:11
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of strategy



    Kim,



    I'm afraid that you are arguing against outdated strategic protocols. Our present and likely future environment for corporations is filled with discontinuous challenges that may come from many new and unattended sources. Corporation's past knowledge has become invalid, e.g., understanding of profitability ratios and positioning choices. What is needed is an appropriate game-changing design to support rapid adaptation to new and unexpected challenges.



    Let's be clear about Lafely's intentions. He seeks knowledge about any potential competitor's SWOT. His is a predictor who uses game-changing designs. Any corporation where Lafely finds his game-changing opportunity is fair game. So to teach our CEOs to worry about profit ratios and positioning questions, may be leading them to become lunch for a CEO with a game-changing design. What do you think?



    George Graen

    Editor, Game-Changing Designs (2009)



    ________________________________

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219957551x1201325337/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62>


  • 42.  Definition of strategy

    Posted 03-06-2009 16:29
    FWIW, ours was a 501(c)3.

    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"

    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Ray Venero <ramon@RAYVENERO.COM>
    >
    To add my two cents, I too served as a senior manager in a similar 501(c)6 as
    Fred describes. We were very serious about "net contribution to reserves" (read:
    profit). This is a very good thing for even social enterprises need to diversify
    their funding sources to include earned income. Otherwise they cannot remain
    > sustainable.
    > Cheers,
    > Ramon Jose Venero
    > Nova Southeastern University
    > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: "nickols@att.net" <nickols@att.net>
    >
    > Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:17:14
    > To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    > Subject: Re: Definition of strategy
    >
    >
    > Kim:
    >
    FWIW, I spent a dozen years in a large non-profit and some of that time was
    spent as head of strategic planning and management services. There, strategy
    tied to mission, not profits. I assume there would be a similar focus on
    mission in government agencies. That said, "position" did play a role. And,
    also FWIW, there are different kinds of non-profits (based on the way they
    > obtain their funding and the nature of their governance system). Mine was what
    > is called an "entrepreneurial" non-profit, which means it obtained its funding
    > through the sale of goods and services. Because it was a non-profit and could
    > not sell stock to raise capital, it had to obtain capital funding through loans,
    > bonds, and retained earnings (i.e., net income over and above expenses).
    > Retained earnings also went into its "invested reserves" and this, too, was used
    > for capital funding. So, while profit for profit's sake might not be an issue
    > in most non-profits, income in excess of expenses is very much on everyone's
    > mind.
    >
    > I look forward to reading your document.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Fred Nickols
    > Managing Partner
    > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > nickols@att.net
    > www.nickols.us
    >
    > "Assistance at A Distance"
    >
    > -------------- Original message ----------------------
    > From: Kim Warren <Kim@STRATEGYDYNAMICS.COM>
    > >
    >
    > >
    > > One last concern about our strategy frameworks ... A focus on
    > > profitability, cash-flows or any other financial performance measure is
    > > not likely to help much with the strategic management of public
    > > services, voluntary groups or other non-profit organizations - a
    > > significant failure since such organizations make up a very large
    > > fraction of every modern economy. But perhaps these organizations share
    > > at least one concern with for-profit corporations - a need for
    > > continuous strategic management over time, in order to improve some
    > > measure of performance, even if that measure is not financial. This is
    > > also touched on in the document above.


  • 43.  Definition of strategy

    Posted 03-06-2009 17:06
    Carolyn asks: Does positioning boil down to deciding what promises to make
    with respect to the market, then designing the systems so that the promises
    are consistently kept?

    I would call that branding. Kim doesn't really address promises.

    Positioning is a suite of business decisions carried out through strategy.
    Management does the decision making with a focus on objectives such as
    profits, competitiveness, return on investment. Management orchestrates
    implementation.

    Branding is a suite of business decisions focused on building durable
    win-win relationships. Strategic marketing (marketing management) makes a
    very similar set of decisions with the primary objective of building brand
    equity. Don Shultz of Northwestern University says that brand equity is the
    only truly durable form of wealth. Everything else changes. Only
    relationships can survive.

    Management driven businesses are typically profits driven. Value driven
    businesses are driven to increase the value of durable relationships. Check
    out your loyalties. Are they to companies? Or to relationships built on
    promises made and kept so well that you consistently buy from that source
    and even give testimonials to others.

    The other day, I went into Starbucks and ordered. As usual, my hand went to
    my back left pants pocket... and found nothing. I'd changed slacks and
    hadn't gotten my wallet into the new outfit. I immediately called to the
    barista (?) and said to cancel the order and why. She said, "This one's on
    me." and followed through.

    Customer intimacy is a classic positioning stance, but it just doesn't have
    heart. Value promises made and kept build loyalty, heart and soul.

    Best,

    Gary


    ...........................................
    Gary Lundquist
    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources*for Innovation
    303-840-9929*
    ...........................................
    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com
    Innovation of Business and
    the Business of InnovationT


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Carolyn Fausnaugh
    Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 1:51 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of strategy


    So does positioning boil down to deciding what promises to make with respect
    to the market, then designing the systems so that the promises are
    consistently kept?

    Carolyn J. Fausnaugh PhD, CPA
    Asst Professor of Strategy & New Ventures
    Florida Institute of Technology
    Melbourne, Florida 32901
    Phone: 321-674-7375; Fax: 321-674-8896
    E-mail: cfausnau@fit.edu

    ________________________________

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Kim
    Warren
    Sent: Fri 3/6/2009 10:56 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of strategy



    Thanks George - I don't deny the value in some cases of seeking
    game-changing strategies, but once you have found one, what do you do for
    the next 1, 2, 5, 10 years ... keep changing your mind? I have designed
    novel strategies in practice, but once that was done came the intensely
    challenging task of designing the system to implement, drive and steer its
    development - some of those strategies are now over 20 years old and still
    going strong, and many other well-known examples have had similarly long
    lives.

    I can see that for some organizations in some sectors, rapid change offers
    both frequent threats to existing business models and opportunities for new
    ones, but not for most firms at most times. And even where it does arise,
    every such shift is followed by the tough but vital task of making it happen
    over subsequent years, and doing so more powerfully than others.



    Kim





    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of George Graen
    Sent: 06 March 2009 13:11
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: Definition of strategy



    Kim,



    I'm afraid that you are arguing against outdated strategic protocols. Our
    present and likely future environment for corporations is filled with
    discontinuous challenges that may come from many new and unattended sources.
    Corporation's past knowledge has become invalid, e.g., understanding of
    profitability ratios and positioning choices. What is needed is an
    appropriate game-changing design to support rapid adaptation to new and
    unexpected challenges.



    Let's be clear about Lafely's intentions. He seeks knowledge about any
    potential competitor's SWOT. His is a predictor who uses game-changing
    designs. Any corporation where Lafely finds his game-changing opportunity
    is fair game. So to teach our CEOs to worry about profit ratios and
    positioning questions, may be leading them to become lunch for a CEO with a
    game-changing design. What do you think?



    George Graen

    Editor, Game-Changing Designs (2009)



    ________________________________

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
    <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219957551x1201325337/aol?redir=htt
    p:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID%
    3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62>


  • 44.  Definition of strategy

    Posted 03-06-2009 20:05
    HOW CAN WE DENY OUR HELPLESS CORPORATIONS?
     
      No one knows what will work in the world Economy. We pray it will cure itself. Our world has changed and corporations must become better predators or become prey. 
    I'm afraid that you are arguing against outdated strategic protocols.  Our
    present and likely future environment for corporations is filled with
    discontinuous challenges that may come from many new and unattended sources.
    Corporation's past knowledge has become invalid, e.g., understanding of
    profitability ratios and positioning choices.  What is needed is an
    appropriate game-changing design to support rapid adaptation to new and
    unexpected challenges.



    Let's be clear about Lafely's intentions.  He seeks knowledge about any
    potential competitor's SWOT.  His is a predator who uses game-changing
    designs.  Any corporation where Lafely finds his game-changing opportunity
    is fair game.  So to teach our CEOs to worry about profit ratios and
    positioning questions, may be leading them to become lunch for a CEO with a
    game-changing design.  What do you think?



    George Graen

    Editor, PREDATOR'S  GAME-CHANGING DESIGNS (2009). INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING.

     

    A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!