Everybody likes to think of themselves as a strategic thinker.  From advisory board members, to CPA’s and marketing consultants, lots of people list “strategic planning” within their list of competencies. Yet, there is a big difference between thinking broadly about strategy and creating a functional, tangible, strategic plan.

Strategy is somewhat esoteric, and theoretical. It deals with broad decisions that must be made about a business such as what products to offer; in which markets, using which core capabilities. The carefully crafted strategic plan has tactics woven into it, in the form of goals, objectives, initiatives, and action plans.

Unfortunately, some companies have a strategy and no strategic plan (and vice versa). If the strategy is stored solely within the confines of the thinking of the entrepreneur, there is no strategic plan.

There are books written about preparing a strategic plan in an hour and writing a marketing plan out on the back of a napkin. The napkin’s evil cousin is the one page business plan, which may tout simplicity as grand, but lacks depth, scope and detail. As the thinking goes, anything as important as the future of a business (and the implications for its employees and investors) should be explained in a few paragraphs. Using the same mindset, an airline pilot’s flight plan could be drawn on a napkin.  A cancer researcher’s thesis should be able to fit on an index card. Perhaps we can cut a few corners and keep the design of that skyscraper to a minimum. Who has the time?

The other problem with the napkin analogy is that it suggests two guys sitting in a pub dreaming up the grand strategy over a Guinness. Some of history’s most ingenious strategies may have been dreamed up that way. Yet the grand strategies do not always translate into a functional strategic plan based on research, thought, prodding, challenge and development of core capabilities such as supporting human capital and technology.

Most importantly, the people who will be responsible for buying into the grand scheme need to be included in the process of developing it. If a board of advisors or two guys in a bar craft and develop the strategy void of management’s input, they are likely to sabotage it or at least slow down its momentum.

Thus, the distinction between being a closet strategist and creating a thorough strategic plan is an important one.  The finer things in life, like a great cabernet or scotch, take time. Building a strategic plan requires patience and a level of expertise that you would expect out of a CPA or intellectual capital attorney.

Take the time to convert your strategy into a tangible strategic plan that you can share with your investors, employees, vendors and even customers (when appropriate). Isn’t the future of your company worth it?

“A wise man learns more from his enemies, than a fool does from his friends”

Baltasar Gracian

While details of Osama bin Laden’s capture are sketchy, one thing that is clear is that the U.S. military executed a nearly flawless raid with pinpoint precision.

For me, the most interesting revelation this week was that the CIA had intelligence about bin Laden’s Islamabad hideout as early as August of last year. The intelligence was seemingly developed over years of digging, prodding and fact finding, which eventually yielded a tip about one of his handlers.

While the bravery of the team that struck the compound is absolute and unquestioned, we should be equally impressed with the methodical approach exhibited by our military command, who demonstrated remarkable patience and fortitude. It seems that every detail of the strike was planned meticulously.  With the lives of American soldiers at risk, no detail was left to chance.

Strategy and tactics are born out of military doctrine, and the ability of operatives to plan their attack preciously, and execute flawlessly should give us pause.  The operation lends credence to the notion that any strategy is only as good as that tactics that support it, and that execution of bad strategy can yield devastating results. It is often necessary to have a well thought out contingency plan in the event of a calamity, such as a helicopter being caught in a “vortex”.

Both strategy and tactics are reliant on good information, and to act prematurely without knowing the facts will often generate a less than desirable outcome. As Stephen Covey points out, part of our time we spend planning, and part of it reacting. The greater the time we invest in planning, the less total energy we must expend. Whether it is in the military or business, the cost of a failed strategy can be high.

Once strategies (which is best defined as which battles should be fought) are determined, an organization must develop core competencies and resources to support them.  While the US of A may have taken a hit in recent years, we still have the finest technology and training in the world, and our enemies should still be weary of that lethal combination.

The Wall Street Journal reported that that CIA Chief Leon Panetta thought that there was a “60% chance” that bin Laden was actually present in the compound. Clearly, the decision to strike took guts. Intelligence officials and the military developed the best information available, planned the attack and took a calculated risk.  For that, our nation is eternally grateful. We should run our businesses with a similar level of preparedness.

Double and triple bottom line companies were all the rage a few years ago. As quickly as they peaked our interest and fed our social sensibilities, they faded into the depths of the great recession.

Many have long assumed that to serve the public good yields some type of opportunity cost. That is to seek any other outcome besides profit robs an organization’s ability to deliver the highest return on investment. Yet some of the world’s hardest charging enterprises such as GE and WalMart consistently lead global movement towards sustainability and similar pursuits. They do so not only because of the obvious public relations benefits but because they view such initiatives as driving some form of competitive advantage.

Thus there is a movement underfoot to understand how our businesses make our communities better, and how our communities (including government) can support economic development. One lesson of our economic malaise is that cities and small towns are drowning as a result of failed businesses; a reflection of an environment in which business and government can be in conflict with one another.

We have a number of clients such as People’s Care, Lincoln Training Centers and the L.A. Fireman’s Relief Association that blur the line between profit and non-profits. These are financially responsible organizations that also provide shared value; i.e. they contribute social benefit to our communities.

I once completed a project for Rio Tinto, one of the world’s largest mining concerns. They were extremely committed to reducing their consumption of water in North America, and invested heavily in seeking out solutions that reduced their impact on the environment, while reducing their cost and risk. My point is that these goals do not have to be in conflict, and can actually be synergistic.

Brands such as Starbucks combine their economic and social interests in a way that enhance their brand and positioning, and promote higher perceived value. Our penchant for spending $3 on a latte instead of a $1 coffee at McDonalds or Dunkin Donuts is due in part to our interest in being part of a social contract (precipitated by Starbucks).

Give some thought to how your enterprise can augment its thirst for profit with the ability to deliver shared value.

Inspired by “Creating Shared Value” by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer HBR January 2011