The Four Myths of Strategy

Every year, executives at American corporations dutifully gather together their top brass, lock themselves in a room and go through the time-honored tradition known as strategic planning. After a few hours — or a few days — they emerge with a sacred document that will increase their sales, make their services shine, engage their staff and secure their futures.

Well, at least that’s the story they tell us in business school. In reality, most companies craft a half-baked strategic plan that is only partially implemented and has sketchy buy-in at best.

Based on their research, Robert Kaplan of Harvard Business School and David Norton of the Balanced Scorecard Collaborative estimate that as many as 90 percent of all corporate strategies are not executed successfully. Beyond not being properly implemented, the strategies themselves are often problematic.

Henry Mintzberg, in his seminal 1993 book The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, refers to strategic planning as an “oxymoron,” claiming that “the process can straitjacket an organization by stifling innovation and commitment.”

So what’s a well-meaning executive to do if he or she wants to make the most of the strategic planning process while avoiding the pitfalls of poor design and implementation? To start, he or she must understand the four myths that lead to wishful, wasteful or less-than-worthwhile strategic planning efforts.

Myth No. 1: Content Is King

Most executives believe that if you get the content of your strategy right, the success of that strategy is a foregone conclusion. They assume that the substance of the strategy must be composed of realistic objectives and the most accurate and valid information.

In their quest to create a strategy that can credibly stand up to the scrutiny of these criteria — and senior management approval — companies often employ outside experts, such as consulting and marketing firms, to analyze, research and benchmark their industry, competitors and markets. In addition, they use tools such as a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis to help create objectives that address both the past performance and current circumstances of the company. Sounds reasonable. And therein lies the problem.