Want Better Strategists? Start With a Better Definition of Strategy

[rangerrebew]

Want Better Strategists? Start With a Better Definition of Strategy
.
By Jeffrey Meiser & Patrick Quirk
July 09, 2020
 

A strategy is a theory of success. Other definitions of strategy abound but are unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons. Several recent essays call attention to why we need a clear, consistent definition of strategy and why other definitions of strategy are inferior to the theory of success definition. Regardless of whether the authors are attacking, defending, or reinterpreting strategy, they share the common characteristics of misunderstanding the nature of strategy and lacking an analytically useful definition of strategy.

These pieces and the associated debate come at a juncture when strategy is increasingly important for the United States and its position in the world. China uses military expansion, economic coercion, political subversion to exert its influence, and challenges the U.S. position in the world. Recognizing this threat, the U.S. is posturing itself for the new era of great power competition. Militarily, it shifts resources to theatres like the Indo-Pacific to contest Chinese aggression and counter China’s predatory economic practices through tariffs and other means.  The U.S. has repurposed foreign aid and launched the International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC) to push back on the CCP’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2020/07/09/want_better_strategists_start_with_a_better_definition_of_strategy_115451.html

[HoustonSam]

Want Better Strategists? Start With a Better Definition of Strategy
.
By Jeffrey Meiser & Patrick Quirk
July 09, 2020
 
A strategy is a theory of success. Other definitions of strategy abound but are unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons. Several recent essays call attention to why we need a clear, consistent definition of strategy and why other definitions of strategy are inferior to the theory of success definition. Regardless of whether the authors are attacking, defending, or reinterpreting strategy, they share the common characteristics of misunderstanding the nature of strategy and lacking an analytically useful definition of strategy.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2020/07/09/want_better_strategists_start_with_a_better_definition_of_strategy_115451.html

Albeit in a much more limited and low-stakes context, I have found this to be a common problem in business over my career.  It's a key example of the lack of clear thought.  The "theory of success" definition advocated in the referenced article is interesting but in my opinion also fails the "analytically useful" test provided by the authors.

I believe a much better definition was provided in 1980 by Professor Michael Porter in his classic textbook "Competitive Advantage" : strategy is an understood relationship between ends and means; the key failure of strategy is to confuse ends and means.  Porter was writing about business strategy, not geopolitics or military issues, but his definition is about thinking itself, not the context of the thinking, and is just as applicable in my opinion.  He followed up in 1990 with "Competitive Advantage of Nations", which is about national prosperity, not national defense.

I'm not part of the geopolitics/military strategy community, and I certainly won't pretend to be smarter about that than the people who are in the community.  But for a definition of strategy, Porter got it right 40 years ago; further discussion is simply not needed.

[EdinVA]

There are technical, financial, time, people and political elements to any strategy and if any single element is allowed to obliterate the others, the strategy will fail.


Strategies need clearly defined objectives, without which, you fail no matter how noble or complete your strategy.