First article in this series
What the hell are all these about!
For years, one has heard the words doctrine, policy and strategy bandied about in the English press as well as the vernacular media. Row upon rows of politicians, bureaucrats, commentators, news anchors and seasoned journalists have used these words interchangeably to fit their need and without even thinking about the consequences of their actions a confused population in general and a bewildered electorate in particular!…………….well, NO MORE!
Let’s be clear, although these concepts are related but they are not interchangeable; i.e. they carry very different meanings and fulfil distinctive functions in achievement of any set of goals. These phrases have been adopted from the military and are now rife in the corporate and political world. Hence, logic would dictate to initially understand these within the military framework and then extrapolate that understanding to other spheres.
However, even the military is not the first organisation to lay claim to the inception of doctrine. It is the Christian church that gets that accolade, and that too from some time ago. In fact, it was in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea where the Roman emperor Constantine called Christian bishops to consolidate the teachings of Christianity. The result? A uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. This enumerated the authoritative beliefs and principles that were to be taught to Christians from that day onwards. Around the 19th century, the military took this a bit further and defined doctrine in terms of considerations that help achieve military objective and goals. For example, NATO defines its doctrine as “fundamental principles by which the military forces guide their actions in support of objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgement in application”. The common denominator between a Christian doctrine and a military doctrine? Principle and being authoritative.
In contrast, policy is guidance that is directive or instructive; i.e. it is clear in stating what is to be accomplished. It is a galvanizing vision that describes the end goal. During the cold war, the American policy military and otherwise could be summed up in one word, ‘containment’. It explained the US intentions very succinctly to all forces involved; i.e. contain the communist ‘red menace’ around the world at all costs! Hence, policy is a conscious choice to pursue a certain course of action out of a plethora of others but never against the established doctrine. Policy will alter in time due to change in high command, update of geo-political realities, advances in warfare and political & fiscal considerations. But doctrine is relatively enduring. While policy changes with the direction of the wind, doctrine remains steadfast and comparatively durable. That is the stark difference between policy and doctrine.
The military then took it a step deeper and defined strategy as ‘ways and means to an end’. That end being the goals established by the policy. Thus, strategy defines how operations are executed to accomplish policy objectives. In its entirety, strategy is a continuous process where ends, ways, and means are aligned to accomplish desired policy end goals while keeping risk at an acceptable level. But that is not all. Strategy goes one step further and provides broad outcomes along with the plans and designs to achieve them. Essentially, it is ‘walk the talk’. It serves at the behest of the policy and not the other way round. That is why there are many strategies needed to achieve the vision emphasised by a policy. So was also true of the US cold war policy of ‘containment’. One strategy was to engage the Soviet Union militarily so that communism didn’t reach the shores of the United States. Another was to get the Soviets involved in an un-realistic and un-sustainable arms race to force the internal collapse of the economy and social strata.
This played out over a number of years until the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 which vindicated the policy and strategies put in place, and continued by, successive military commanders in conjunction with changing US governments.
But who are the purveyors of these three realms of doctrine, policy, and strategy?
Doctrine sits atop the highest pedestal and, stretching the military allegory a bit further, is the sole ambit of the military chief one person, not a board. And that is the most important aspect of doctrine, it needs to stay away from the bureaucratic hurdle of consensus. It needs to breed from the experience of the man at the top. Hence it is crucial to have the correct man in charge! Even a staunch doctrine such as ‘victory or death’ can become as soft as ‘success or a reasonable alternative’ in the hands of a committee which has a desire to agree a consensus.
Subsequently, policy comes from the leadership team designated by the military chief which generally includes him as well. This is where all the consensus building needs to take place while utilising the meritorious experience of the team assembled around the table. Discussions can be had but consensus is to be forged.
Finally, strategy is left to different heads of departments within the military. Here operational experience is paramount and essential to chart out strategies, along with designs and plans, to reach the end goals instructed by the policy.
It is true that the interactions of these three realms is relatively complex. But with the conceptual understanding of all three and the location of relevant practitioners of each, there is no reason that one can’t easily decipher fact from fiction.
Therefore, next time anyone blurts out this cacophony of noise around doctrine, policy, and strategy, take a step back. Inhale a deep breath. Think and separate the wheat from the chaff!
Second article in this series
Politicians need to wake up and take note!
The original article in this series discussed the disparate, but often misconstrued, nature of doctrine, policy, and strategy. Doctrine being a set of authoritative beliefs stemming from one faith or individual. Policy as an instructive and galvanizing vision put forth by the leaders of on organisation or creed. Strategy defined as the ways and means to reach policy objectives by second tier organisational management.
No other social sphere has distorted these terms more than politics. Hardly a day goes by without a politician, leader or political commentator prefixing these phrases to their message in the quest of furthering their cause or sounding regal and sophisticated. In this context, the word policy is the most misused and misunderstood term. These people must be told calling every action they evert take as a policy is in poor taste! And self-defeating!
The question is, why is this act so replete? Consider.
Broadly speaking, individuals enter the world of politics on two pretexts. First, serving the people the nobler of the two. Second, the notional attachment to the power of government and its dividends the more selfish of the two. The going logic states that the majority will fall into the second category, which is unfortunate. However, both require a grand vision of which course is expected to be taken. Power to define that course lies in policy formulation and thus the unknowing politician thinks that tagging every ‘gem’ uttered with ‘policy’ will provide that feeling of power and control. This is utterly wrong, deluded at best and nonsensical at worst. Hence, a better understanding of governmental policy is in the offing.
A government generally doesn’t have one policy but a set of policies. Why? Because governments are run though different departments or ministries. These range from crucial ones such as foreign to less critical like fisheries. Notionally, the key ministries are foreign, defence, interior, and finance. Each ministry has its own motivating direction to be taken and to provide guidance on the objectives to be achieved. That is why you will never hear the phrase ‘foreign strategy’ but always the expression ‘foreign policy’! And as opined earlier, this policy must always come from the minister in-charge. Hence it is paramount to have the correct politician, one with relevant experience, to head up a ministry. It is a fallacy to think that any sitting minister can head up any ministry. This is the reason history has recorded the biggest blunders of all times! Winston Churchill, the subsequently renowned British Prime Minister, is one surprising candidate. A former army officer and First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill was also Chancellor of the Exchequer finance minister to the rest and in 1925 restored the convertibility of the pound into gold, which had been suspended in the Great War. He didn’t realise the economic impact this policy decision would have as it lead to mass unemployment, intensified the depression, and squeezed the fiscal status of all social strata!
But policy alone is not enough to achieve the aims it desires. That is where strategy comes in and defines how operations are executed to accomplish policy objectives. As discussed previously, strategy is a continuous process where ends, ways, and means are aligned to accomplish desired policy end goals while keeping risk at an acceptable level. There can be one or more strategies underpinning a specific policy. For example, at the height of the cold war, the US State Department foreign ministry to others had designated a policy of ‘containment’ for the communist influx of the Soviet Union. Though, there were quite a few underpinning strategies to reach that grand purpose. Afghan war, arms race, Star Wars program, Vietnam engagement and intellectual propaganda to name a few. Crucially, who is entitled to setup strategies? In the political sphere it is the bureaucracy that is tasked with this aim. It houses seasoned individuals who have worked years in particular governmental departments to hone their talents and they are the ones that need to execute the strategies to fulfil the ambition of the policy setup at a political and ministerial level.
However, there are two paramount prerequisites for this combination of policy and strategies to work effectively. One, each institution or domain needs to focus on its own actions and not meddle into the affairs of the other. Politicians and governments need to stick to policy formulation and the bureaucracy needs to focus on strategic initiatives to execute the defined policy. Anything less is a recipe for disaster! Two, competent and erstwhile bureaucrats need to work their craft in a reprisal-free environment. Political interference, in the search of bureaucratic yes-men, causes a lot of anguish between the two realms. This should not happen!
In the political and governmental arena, doctrine belongs to the person at the head of the government. This is because the highest set of beliefs is focused around the experiences of the individual at the top. For example, the Bush Doctrine refers to various related foreign policy principles of the 43rd President of the United States. These principles include unilateralism and the use of preventative/pre-emptive war. All subsequent policies and strategies stemmed from these principles. Consequently, doctrine with its set of beliefs and principles must come first. Because, and to paraphrase Alexander Hamilton, “if you don’t believe in something you will fall for anything”!
Intrigues and necessities are the unfortunate hallmarks of any political system. But to ‘get the job done’ the government needs to ensure an efficient troika of doctrine, policy, and strategy at the heart of the administration. One can make compromises to reach the doctrinal and policy goal, but one can’t compromise that goal itself!
Third article in this series
Policy of protectionism is at odds with globalisation!
The latest G7 summit that concluded on the 9th of June 2018 resulted in bitter acrimony between the US and its allies. Generally, diplomacy obfuscates or at least plays down the fissures between different parties but if the pictures of western leaders congregating around Donald Trump are anything to go by, it was a divisive meeting at best. Generally, the G7 summit is a docile affair known for eloquent speeches without concrete actions. What changed this time around? Donald Trump–the joker in the pack!
There are Republican presidents, then there are Republican presidents and then there is Donald Trump! Consider.
Trump’s protectionism pledges include pulling out of the Kyoto treaty, opposing trade deals such as North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), barring Muslims from the US, erecting a wall with Mexico and revoking the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This list is so inappropriate for the globalised world that none of the prior right-leaning presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike, included any such promises as part of their campaign. Almost all strategies pursued by the Trump white house seem to stem from this overarching policy of protectionism. And, we know from initial opinion pieces in this series that policy is guidance that is directive or instructive; i.e. it is clear in stating what is to be accomplished. It is a galvanizing vision that describes the end goal. However, in this case, Trumps protectionist policy is completely detached from his campaign slogan of ‘America First’. In the era of hyper globalisation, this protectionist policy will undermine the one thing the administration is trying to achieve; i.e. bringing prosperity back to the US by putting ‘America First’.
The Trump histrionics at the G7 summit were a component of this self-harming protectionist policy which is defined as an economic policy of restricting imports from other countries through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, import quotas, and a variety of other government regulations. The US hypocrisy was plain to see promoting a tariff free world while imposing 25% tariff for steel and 10% for aluminium on imports from the EU, Canada, and Mexico. On a personal level, Trump called Justin Trudeau meek, mild, dishonest, and weak and suggested further tariffs will be imposed in other manufacturing sectors as well. No wonder the G7 leaders were outraged against the American administration.
Advocates of protectionism such as Trump base their case mainly on two premises. One, that high-wage countries like the United States cannot compete with low-wage countries. In the era of internationalism this notion doesn’t stick because restricting imports produces a huge burden on the local consumer. This leads to lesser consumer spending, stagnating the very local industry that was to be helped and thus tanking the economy at some stage. Two, the unlevel playing field argument. This suggests that while the US plays by the rule of the free market, others support targeted industries with trade protection, subsidies and selective procurement. This also doesn’t wash considering that there are many trade free agreements that world leaders around the world have established that, incidentally, the US is planning to exit one by one.
A quick glance over historic policy directives suggests that protectionism hasn’t fared well at all and at any juncture. Consider the McKinley Tariff. Named after the future Republican president, it was made into law in 1890. The objective? Raise the average duty on all imports from 38% to 49.5% in an attempt to protect agricultural and other producers. The result? Increased consumer costs on everyday goods such as food, clothing and cutlery and plates. The direction of trade moved away from the US and towards other countries. For example, Canadian agricultural exports to the U.S. decreased by half, but quadrupled to England. In the US, per capita GDP decreased by more than 2%, while unemployment tripled!
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of the 1930s was aimed at protecting U.S. agriculture from foreign competition in the heart of the Great Depression. Enacted in 1930, this law raised the average tariff to over 59% in 1932. This tariff had no support from the icons of the time including Henry Ford and there were wide spread calls to end this controversial approach. In reciprocity, almost 23 countries complained and threatened wide ranging tariffs. In this period, American exports declined from about $5.2 billion to $1.7 billion and US GDP declined by nearly 40% and in the following years, the unemployment rate nearly tripled. History records that while it didn’t cause the Great Depression, the Smoot-Hawley tariff certainly exacerbated it.
The Trump administration must reconsider their policy options! They need not go any further than glancing through the history of protectionism policies in their own country. Protectionism pledges might win elections, but they end up costing the future. The US will do well to remember George Santayana’s words those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Fourth article in this series
A national security strategy incoherent with policy and doctrine will never work!
The stated intent of Goldwater–Nichols act of 1986 is broadly accepted as valid for effective political discourse on issues affecting America’s National Security. This is so that the Congress and the Executive have a common understanding of the global security environment and the intent of the administration to pursue a mitigating course. On the back of this, the National Security Strategy has become a tool that successive American presidents have used to rhetorically sing about their unrealistic ambitions at the international stage. Since 1986, presidents have managed to produce a National Security Strategy in almost every year of their term.
Originating opinion pieces in this series state that strategies cannot exist without an overarching policy which in turn is linked to the doctrine of the man at the top in this case the president. Policy is a galvanizing vision that describes the end goals and strategies provide the ‘ways and means’ to those ends. At least presidents before Trump kept to the established and synced troika of strategy, policy, and doctrine but not Donald Trump! Why? Consider the following.
Trump is a transactional politician at best. His debatable but successful real estate career was built on opportunistic and often predatorial behaviour and on being the ‘right person at the right time’. One can’t become a ‘real estate mogul’ a title he is rumoured to have bestowed upon himself without working one deal at a time and keeping short term profiteering in mind. While this approach might be occasionally useful in the building world, it is next to impossible to work for the American presidency. The reason is that Trump, owing to his opportunistic background, has no personal doctrine and principles that will shape his presidency. Which means that he will view the pros and cons of a decision at a time without tailing it back to any article of faith or conviction. This is not to say that it is a bad way to operate but maybe not for a president that touts to be the leader of the free world! This means that the Trump administration falls spectacularly at the first and the most critical hurdle that of having a doctrine flow through the entire executive arm.
From there on in the current White House has had a tough time keeping the coherence between doctrine, policy, and strategy even if it is credited with publishing the National Security Strategy in an inauguration year for the first time.
Trump’s first speech at the swearing in reflected a remarkably dark picture of his ‘America First’ narrative. It was evident even then that while this was a sufficiently good slogan to galvanize fear and win the election, it was not a good enough vision to guide America in a globalised world. Hats off to the people around the president who are endeavouring to reform this problematic catch phrase to make it less benign and less objectionable. It is indeed an uphill task.
The same effort, to tone down the rhetoric, is evident in the National Security Strategy. Even since the campaign trail, it seemed that the administration was committed to a very narrow, materialistic, and short-term view of American national security interests. Also, it appeared that Trump’s campaign didn’t appreciate how these interests could be advanced by pushing American values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and compromising, as needed, to bring along valued allies and partners.
Understandably, even now the administration can’t dissociate itself from the election slogan ‘America First’. After all, a campaign manifesto is what the government is ultimately measured against and this government can’t afford to alienate its core far-right base. However, the National Security Strategy attempts to initiate damage control by trying to reinterpret ‘America First’ to make it less objectionable and more acceptable. It uses terms such as ‘principled realism’ which is guise to suggest that America will not forget its allies and partners and will not ‘go it alone’ across the world to endeavour upon unilateral misadventures. It also suggests that the ‘America First’ policy labelling it wrongly as it is only a campaign slogan should be used as a force for good in the world which could lead to peace and prosperity for everyone and ultimately leading to successful societal values. Unfortunately, even if the National Security Strategy is replete with efforts to neutralise the language, it is not noteworthy because it is quite evident from the vitriol coming from the administration that they could not sincerely offer it.
Therefore, even this seemingly important tool of National Security Strategy without a presidential doctrine behind it and a cohesive policy statement to guide it, is as useful to lead as a heap of sand is valuable to the Arabs. The Trump administration needs to learn to think from top to bottom and not float around the bottom of the barrel and work their way up. That is an exercise that is futile at best and dangerous at worst!
Fifth article in this series
Corruption is only the symptom not the cause!
Election year is tough not merely on politicians but especially on the electorate. All political parties showcase their manifestos which include by and large at least one strategy to tackle the rampant corruption in the country. Thus, by proxy, there is a tacit admission that corruption is indeed a big issue for the people of the land. The upcoming elections in Pakistan are no different. All big political parties and personalities state corruption as the root of almost all evils ailing the country. But this would be only treating the symptom and not the underlying problem. Why? After all, ever since the inception of Pakistan, corruption has been referred to as the mother of all scrooges. Then why the age-old wisdom needs to be shifted now? It needs to, and it must! Consider.
The baseline op-eds in this series highlighted that firstly an overarching policy a galvanising vision is needed to implement reform. Secondly, different strategies are required to execute that policy. And before all that, the personal doctrine of the person at the helm of affairs must align and push forth the stated policy.
So where does corruption, or eradication thereof, stands in the above stated triad? Considering the manifestos of the three larger political parties – PML (N), PPP and PTI – corruption is the root cause of many issues and thus they believe it is a policy decision to tackle and eliminate corruption. They can’t be more wrong!
Ending, or realistically reducing, corruption is only a strategy. But a strategy must be tailed back to an overarching policy and endeavour to achieve the related policy aim. This is where all political parties have missed the mark and have failed to understand the astute differences between policy and strategy. Thus, the question to ask is, what might that policy objective be which an anti-corruption strategy will achieve? In one word, equality! Creating equality amongst its citizens and within the system itself needs to be the overarching policy for government present or future. A simple example elaborates this further. Two people go for a job interview and the person well known to the interviewer gets the job even while being less qualified and less competent. Although to the naked eye this might seem like an act of corruption, but the underlying reason is lack of equality. If the two candidates were treated equally then no preferential treatment could be meted and thus justice would be served. Similar extrapolations can be made into other social spheres. However, this notion of using equality as policy option is not new either. History is replete with examples where equality was used as an overarching policy option to achieve successful nation building and pre-longed era of good governance. Consider the following three.
After the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) entered Medina, he successfully created a tolerant and multi-cultural society for all faiths – Muslims, Christians, and Jews. He did so by supporting a policy of equality among the population of the city. The strategy he used the most was to demonstrate his own reputation for piety and fairness. A reputation he had enjoyed his whole life as a result of practicing such a policy. Therefore, having an alignment with his personal doctrine a well. This policy was keenly applicable in his last sermon as well where he said, “All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also, a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action”.
The stated policy of the French republic is Liberté, égalité, fraternité – French for liberty, equality, fraternity. This is the bedrock of the new republic and was selected as the motto of any forthcoming governments after the bottom end of the 18th century. Such has been the power of this policy that no politician or leader dare think to create any strategies in opposition to these policy objectives. This has become part of the fabric of France. So much so that the three colours in the French flag are said to represent the policy of liberty, equality, and fraternity culminating in the recent football world cup victory for one of the most diverse but equal group of French players.
The American declaration of independence states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Notice that even back in 1776 there was a conscientious choice by the founding fathers of America to state equality as their chief policy option which further strategy decisions would achieve. This laid the foundations of the dominant position the United States finds itself in today.
All political leaders worth their salt must recognise the differences between policy and strategy and stop the incessant sloganeering. By all means, an anti-corruption drive is a very necessary strategy for the times, but it must act on the behest of a policy of equality and not independent of it. And to extract true success, all of this must stem from the leaders’ personal doctrine of treating people as equals. But, looking at the present crop of leaders on display, the less said about that, the better.
Sixth article in this series
Beware the Imran Khan doctrine!
Imran Khan has been a hero to many a younger generation especially those who came of age in 1992. That was the year when Pakistan won the cricket world cup. It was a time when cricket tournaments were scarce, the twenty-twenty format hadn’t kicked off and, there wasn’t a cricket-league-a-dime across the world. Hence, the Pakistani victory in Melbourne was very sweet, long awaited and, as time tells us, long rejoiced since. Without a doubt, Imran Khan was the key to lifting the world cup. His cricketing prowess might have dwindled but his ‘never say die’ attitude was still rampant. So much so that he expected to win the world cup when everyone, including people under his command, questioned his belief and Pakistan’s chances in the tournament. Against all odds and baffling pundits and players alike, Imran Khan hoisted the crystal trophy on that fateful evening in Australia.
Was it fate? Karma? Prayers? Or that one significant draw that earned Pakistan a stab at the semi-final? Probably a bit of everything depending on one’s philosophical leanings. But mostly, this victory was a manifestation of Imran Khan’s doctrine “never give up, never give in”!
Recall that this opinion series has already defined doctrine as authoritative beliefs and principles that guide one’s actions in support of objectives. This generally exists at the personal level and stems from the experience, convictions, and judgement of the person in charge and results into a galvanising policy and strategies to achieve relevant policy aims. The Imran Khan doctrine is no different.
This doctrine has held him in good stead since winning the world cup in 1992. Imran Khan set out to build a first-rate cancer hospital. When he started, many questioned his ability to do so and said that this couldn’t be done. He proved them wrong and managed to succeed where successive governments and leaders had failed in the past. His quest for a world class college in the heart of the deprived area of Mianwali resulted in Namal College. In that time, he had also managed to establish a second cancer hospital in Peshawar. He has likewise struggled at the political scene for over 22 years until now.
Today when Imran Khan is poised to take over as Prime Minister, the question is will his doctrine still benefit Pakistan and its populace? Not necessarily. Consider.
Noble quests are easily underpinned by a noble doctrine. Running a country with many challenges, not quite so. The opposition is baying for blood and angrily rejecting the election results. The country is facing multiple economical, security and existential challenges. The establishment is looking to continue its sublime influence over the landscape. Therefore, Prime Minster Imran Khan will have to walk a tight rope and learn to pick and choose his battles. Not only for his sake but more crucially for the sake of this forlorn population which is expecting at least a transformation in direction even if not miraculous changes from the new government.
It is not as if there isn’t much to do! In-fact quite the opposite with such a void in general competence and good governance, Imran Khan can focus on the less controversial aspects first.
There is no need to endeavour unnecessarily to govern weakly in Baluchistan and Sindh. If he can run a strong government in the centre and KPK and an efficient one in Punjab, he should be quite happy and make the most of it. This he can do by offering the people an alternate form of government where the state aims to provide fundamental rights to all its citizens as enshrined in the constitution.
From a policy perspective, the emphasis should be on finance, health, education, taxation, trade, security, and institutional reforms. There is no requirement to wrestle the establishment on defence and foreign policy. Something that the previous two governments did with disastrous results. In these two domains, a peaceful co-existence should be sought.
Don’t waste time and energy on managing and negating political dissent. Even in a flawed democracy such as Pakistan, that is a given and should be encouraged. Instead, let the exemplary track record of his governments do the talking. The common man needs someone to deliver on the promises and not only talk about them! In-fact, at this critical juncture, Pakistanis need someone who’s bigger than their speeches!
Prioritise critical work needed in the water and power arena to alleviate the lack of rudimentary facilities provided to the general population. The need here is so dire that a national emergency might have to be invoked. This action will have many takers and is bound to not ruffle many feathers.
Just like life, running governments is also a marathon and not a sprint. The need is to ensure that one doesn’t fall over the first hurdle but persistently hangs around to complete the marathon. Imran Khan will also have to do something similar. Although his doctrine of “never give up, never give in” has worked well in the past but politics and governments are a different kettle of fish altogether. He needs to wake up to that reality and understand that this pitch is all about the art of the possible. He can’t boil all the ocean at once and thus must choose which threads to pull! For him and this nation, it would be a tragedy if he only became a foot note in history rather than creating one on his own.
Seventh article in this series
An Agile Corporate Strategy for an agile world: The need of the hour
Until quite recently corporate strategy was thought to be the exclusive domain of leaders within an organisation who would analyse and ponder for ages before establishing a strategy that would falsely be assumed to be suitable for years to come. This might have worked till 15 years ago when the rate of change, internally and externally, was not as exacerbated as it is now. Today, however, the corporate environment is so dynamic that this ancient wisdom of strategy formulation no longer holds true.
A leaf from history
Years ago, software development followed a sequential framework entitled Waterfall. The idea was that requirement gathering, analysis & design, development, testing and deployment was done serially. Although this generated some certainty but the main issue was that all value was delivered right at the end of this chain and after a considerable wait. The IT and Internet revolution across both sides of the new millennium meant that the ever-changing demands of business forced software development to move towards a newer framework, termed Agile.
Scrum methodology rose to become the most popular implementation of the Agile framework where two functions and one timeline activity played a critical part. Firstly, the Scrum Product Owner was responsible to gather and analyse requirements from the community and environment at large. Secondly, the Scrum Master was responsible to implement those requirements using this Scrum Team. Thirdly, the work was divided into a concept of multiple Sprints which would be time constrained and would deliver value at the end of one Sprint. Here, the notion was to deliver value in chunks but iteratively and throughout the life cycle of the work. Therefore, certainty was sacrificed over early realisation of value by keeping the fluid and changing nature of requirements in view.
This radical approach paid dividends to the software industry as value was delivered earlier. This is reflected in the mega success of software houses from the United States to India and China.
The question is, can a change in thinking such as that encountered in the software world help the construction of corporate strategy and bring it out of the malaise of stagnation? It can. Consider.
Extrapolation of Agile in to Corporate Strategy
The traditional framework of corporate strategy formulation envisages similar functions such as the Scrum Agile framework. However, the implementation and timelines are completely different. There is a function responsible for analysis that scans the market, grades the opposition, provides competitive intelligence, and aligns to internal stakeholders within the organisation. Then there is a function that deals with formulation and implementation of the strategy, or strategies, to fulfil the direction suggested within the results of the previous phase. The problem is that both phases are relatively static and take too long to execute and thus the organisation finds itself behind the curve and always playing catch-up with an ever fleeting and ever changing face of business and the environment.
This highly volatile and rapid velocity business environment can be labelled as VUCA, a term borrowed from the military which stands for Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous. Plainly put, it means “it’s crazy out there”. VUCA forces the business leaders of today to shift towards a new paradigm of strategy formulation by extrapolating the Agile framework and the Scrum process into the organisation and upper echelons of power. Most importantly, though, the transposition of the notion of Sprints to deliver value earlier.
Firstly, shorter Sprints must be defined as opposed to the existing strategy formulation time that takes months if not years and strategy execution that takes years if not tens of years. Although in the software world Sprints can be anywhere from two to four weeks but in the realm of corporate strategy the Sprint for strategy formulation and strategy execution should be a couple of months and a couple of years respectively. Furthermore, the Sprint for strategy formulation should re-run every six months to recalibrate the ongoing Sprint for strategy execution. This is so that there is a continual feedback mechanism from the environment which will keep the strategy aligned to the overall vision of the organisation and deliver value earlier.
Secondly, the function of Scrum Product Owner, to analyse the environment and define the strategy, should be headed by only a couple of roles within the organisation. These are expected to be leaders in the organisation who are aware of the overarching vision of their own corporation as well as being in tune with the external environment and in-sync with the pulse of internal stakeholders. And nominally, they will be part of the executive team.
Thirdly, the Scrum Master will be a manager within an organisation who will be tasked for ratification and execution of one or more strategies but within the bounds of defined Sprints as mentioned previously. This is because managers are generally tasked with this endeavour anyway.
At this juncture, it is important to differentiate between the roles of a leader and manager in any organisation. Leaders generally tend to deal with policy and high level strategy formulation. Managers tend to be resources who will deal with ratifying and executing the strategy. That is why leaders are more suited to be Scrum Product Owners and managers more suitable as Scrum Masters.
The dividends of an Agile Corporate Strategy
As for software development, the biggest merit of an Agile Corporate Strategy is the early recognition of value and that is crucial in an ever-changing business environment that generally retains its inherent property of flux.
Well defined roles paralleled to the Agile framework and the Scrum methodology is another advantage which means that there is no reason to reinvent the wheel. Especially when one considers that leaders and managers both will need to be involved to make this a success. Keeping the old maxim of “too many cooks spoiling the broth”, Agile Corporate Strategy would also dictate the number of leaders and managers that are needed to formulate and execute the strategy.
The novel idea of the Sprint, a reduced timeline for strategy formulation and execution, is also a key lynchpin of this approach. Gone are the days when strategy was left trickling through years of stagnation, ambiguity, and apathy. The Agile Corporate Strategy envisages smaller phases of strategy formulation and execution which would need strict adherence for the success of this enterprise.
Remember the Greeks
When in doubt, always remember the Greeks. For this method to succeed, the extrapolation of the Agile framework into Corporate Strategy must be underpinned by the three pillars of the Greek system which defined modern democracy.
Ability to see both sides of the coin never forget that strategy formulation and strategy execution are two sides of the same coin. Hence, it is important to give both their dues and realise their effect on each other.
A feeling for proportionality a proportional response is needed to the analysis of the environment and competition. Therefore, careful strategy formulation with a feeling of proportionality is key so that out of scope items are not part of the execution and that the organisation should not bite off more than it can chew.
Faith in rationale not dogma lastly, competency should be developed to have faith in the approach and the notion of reasoning rather than fleeting and gimmicky slogans. The idea is to stay the course and only re-calibrate when needed.
Okakura Kakuzō, the great Japanese scholar, once said, “the art of life is a constant readjustment to our surroundings”. How true he was, the fleeting and hectic pace of life today puts this theme at the heart of the discussions about adaptability. Organisations also should be adaptable when it comes to changing environment and empowering opposition and the newly defined Agile nature of Corporate Strategy will go a long way in ensuring that happens.
There are no other alternatives for success in a hectic and global world.
