Instead of starting this blog by asking the classical question of what strategy is, I am going to address a different one: what could be defined as strategic and what should not be labeled as such?

Nevertheless we will, for sure, go back to the very concept of strategy – hence it is the essence of the Philosophy, particularly the Ontology of Strategy – in other posts, now I prefer to draw your attention to a similar, but slightly more practical, approach.

Implications are clear: what counts as belonging to the field make us aware of it, and what doesn’t… well, we might just save some energy and make better use of our time.

Despite of the fact that normally in organisations what is defined as a strategic issue is whatever that relates to what people at the C-level do, I would rather amplify the understanding of what would be considered strategic and what would not.

We can classify the discussion across a few perspectives, asking directly: what truly deserves to be considered strategic?

• Position in the organisational chart: ok, probably what does relate to high-level responsibility could be labeled as strategic, indeed. I don’t want to exclude this criterion, just broaden it up.
• Long-term view: decisions in respect of the far future would be strategic, short-term issues would be not. Whoever is dealing with it, whatever their role may be, if the matter suggests years ahead it will be brought to our field of work whatsoever.
• Criticality and/or impact: if the question is of high impact, with severe consequences, it is strategic. As Sun Tzu has said: “The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is a matter of life and death…” Just take this quote to your particular context and you see what is strategic.
• Competition: only when the subject is related to an advantage (or disadvantage) against other competitors. Of course here you are not considering cooperation as a primary end. Anyway, it’s typical Michael Porter doctrine: it’s not about operational efficiency, but positioning your business to capture profits within the value chain based upon a sustainable advantage.
• Cognitive process: what is strategic is dependent on the way one is thinking about the situation. Be spontaneous or impulsive; react with fear, or rage; act without thinking at all; those are not strategic attitudes. The opposite is.
• Facing uncertainty: this is Edgar Morin’s contribution and it’s very enlightening. Strategy would be useless in a predictable environment. So, are you coping with complexity and new emergent variables? You are, then, at least trying to strategize.

And you might add some other points of view to my list – I just wanted to kickstart the discussion and help to embrace plurality. This is, anyhow, a typical subject of complexity (where different perspectives are intertwined) and scale (a vast and perhaps limitless scope for discussions). Nonetheless, it’s useful to have at hand one or two distinct perspectives so you can turn up the conversation.

---

Defining what is strategic is more than an academic exercise; it is a practical tool to sharpen focus and allocate resources wisely in your daily routine.

By the way, regarding what you have been doing today… How strategically has your time been spent?