The Shocking Simplicity of Strategic Thinking - Gary Hamel case

World renowned strategy guru Gary Hamel has made an excellent video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aodjgkv65MM

 

 

The watching of that video makes one wonder what is the true nature of strategic thinking. It is intriguing to realize that here top thinker of certain topic (strategy) gives a presentation about latest ideas of his domain and, somewhat shockingly,  everything on that video is clear and very simple. It is safe to assume that every layman would immediately understand every word and every idea discussed on this video. How is this possible? What this all tell about strategic thinking? What this all tell about the way how strategic thinking is often perceived and presented?

Let us take any other discipline and let us imagine that the most advanced thinker would give a presentation about the latest findings on his field. I believe quite often layman could not follow at all what the thinker would be presenting. And even if the thinker liked to make a very special effort and speak to everyone, like Brian Greene about String theory, we would sense how he is making extra effort to make most complex issues at least somewhat understandable to us all. We would also be acutely aware that the expert could easily change his speaking mode and after that change we would immediately “drop off the wagon”.

In the case of strategic thinking things seem to be different - outright clarity and simplicity seem to prevail. How is this possible? I believe that we have to start to perceive strategic thinking a bit differently. But before going to that let us take couple perspectives on the Gary Hamel’s presentation. First, it can be said generally that simplicity is not the thing that comes first, it is something what comes last. So when a person really knows his topic, he is able to present even difficult matters clearly. Secondly, in the strategy world this video is naturally a business case in itself and it would probably difficult to sell something which would be very difficult to understand. Certainly this video increases the demand so that different organizers all over the world want to get Gary Hamel to give his presentation in their seminars. Also it is fair to recognize that this is just a very short video within which the expert tells his case as clearly and as convincingly as possible. And the presentation is just excellent.

Yet, I propose that we should also attach something important to every discussion and every presentation about strategy. This is because doing strategy in any real setting is actually very, very difficult and demanding. It is not a simple case, easy to follow and that's it. And although any presentation can operate on its own right, we should perhaps always try to remember to connection between presentation and real world.

 

Hence I would propose that we should attach at least following three caveats to every presentation about strategy:

1)      Let us always evaluate the logic of the presentation. Is it something which is nice to hear or does it seem to correspond the facts of real life. For instance, in this video under discussion we hear how organizations in the future will take into account the needs of us humans. Absolutely great idea. However, in real life this humanization of organizations is certainly one trend but old style will continue in many industries and in many organizations. Sometimes the old style is due the incapability to change and sometime it may be that the realities of certain industry are such that freedoms in certain positions in certain kind of processes just are rather limited. It may also be that in some areas of business and organizational activities very intensive coordination will be the way to succeed also in the future and in those cases people just do their part in the extremely well planned process and that’s it.

2)      Strategy in action is not just ideas, it is much, much more and often these other things are the ones which determine whether the organization succeeds and moves towards desired direction. These so called other things include, a lot of all kind of work day after day, an ability to stand all kinds of pressures and all kinds of uncertainties, and also an ability to learn all the time, because the planned route never works, there will be failures and dead ends.

3)      Strategy is not a one man show. There are people around and each of us has something to say in every strategy development and implementation. Also everything happens in some business environment which is constantly changing. This means that in real world we all operate in middle of numerous willing people and all kind of surprises which may rapidly change the whole setting. Clarity and simplicity are not part of the picture.

 In sum. What is strategic thinking? Can we take strategic thinking out from the complex world and examine it is something very simple and clear? Is it beneficial to do so? What kind of discussion about strategy would be most useful to those people how try to make their organizations more successful?

I believe deeper and deeper understanding about real life and about situations where people operate is the cornerstone of strategic wisdom.

 

Business Education - Complex Endeavour

Business Education - Complex Endeavour

What it would mean to become really interested in what happens in this world? Isn't it a basic task for an University to understand better and deeper what is this very world where we we live in? Deeper understanding is crucial because it will also open possibilities to change things when deemed necessary.

One would assume that in business education this kind of an approach is a self evident reality. Business is practical thing and thus business education examines business world and its real challenges and possibilities - so one might think. However perhaps the reality in education realm is much more complicated. In fact it is not clear that  we as business educators can look where we should look. Are the business educators like astronomers who do not dare to look at the sky? Impossible, you may think, perhaps not, bear with me for a moment.

Perhaps you might think that the point here is to ridicule business educators. However, that is not at all the goal in this blog, I wish to be absolutely clear in that respect. Instead the point is to examine why it is most challenging to assume a real life approach in Business education. It would not be an easy stance for anyone involved, as we shall see.

The goal here is not try to cover Business education in its entirety, instead only one perspective is taken under discussion. I will guarantee that already that one perspective will show why real life approach would change a lot and why it would require a lot. It is also proposed here  that this discussion could be applied more generally when Business education is evaluated.

The perspective here is to discuss how local/regional business environment could be viewed as important research topic in Business education which would focus on real world. In fact local reality could be basic starting point in business education, perhaps the curriculum would run as follows: what we have here around us in our region, how those institutions operate, where are their challenges and possibilities, who are the key people, what are the crucial linkages with wider world, which elements determine the success of our area, what kind of actions and decisions could be done to make our region more successful, etc.

It is evident that real world approach would not be a simple solution for Business educators, or for anyone involved (students, wider world). Of course these real life topics as such would be complicated but also it would be most challenging that research would really focus on real organizations and also on named individuals. And now we would not talk about "nice" cases which are brought in the classroom but we would talk about real events, real choices, real capabilities, real organizations and real people in action. Hence we would soon face very complex questions: how much we can know about organizations - how to get information in the first place, what kind of information is already a business secret etc. That kind of questions would surface. And it would be even much more complicated to try to study key players in organizations, who they are, what are their motivations, their capabilities, their plans, etc.

I think this kind of questions may sound immediately somewhat impossible and improper. And the point here is not to suggest that this kind of questions should be asked and discussed. However, at the same we certainly agree that we wish and we must to talk about real life in Business education. Hence what kind of discussions we deem as pertinent and necessary, and where we would go over the line? Quite a conundrum. These are not simple questions.

At the same time the ability to steer forward among these questions will be very important determinant in defining how the Business education will succeed.

What is immediately apparent is that when one wishes to create a world class Business education that will also mean that the key players around the University will also need to be deeply involved in the setting. Are they ready to join in the learning process in which all parties examine the world where we live in? It is so easy for astronomers, Betelgeuse, Rigel and the whole Orion belt does not care a bit of they are examined and thorougly discussed in a classroom (or at least it will take some light years before the possible grievances which they may voice arrive to our planet). Whereas, in real world Business education the setting is totally different. The trust on which any connection can be created and developed is tested continuously.

What is actually the key capability of Business educators?