Why Improve The Definition Of Strategy
Definitions matter.
Agreeing on anything becomes difficult if we do not agree on definitions. I would even go further to say that it breeds contempt. Parties feel blindsided by perceptions of the truth and fracture groups. After all, truth does not suffer from facts, it suffers from interpretation.
It’s even more concerning when someone states, “this is our strategy for 2024”, only to be met with furrowed brows. I tried this at the office today. I asked everyone separately what does it mean, and I got back 11 different answers. Hmm, linguistics over a broad word incites wild discussions.
It is also important that I state I do not disagree with the definition stated in the Oxford Dictionary.
Strategy. noun
a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim
I simply feel that it is not enough. Personally, I do not think it helps construct proper strategies. I understand that the dictionary never set out with that intent, but I would like to develop that.
To understand, develop and implement this word, there are a few things we must first do. First is to understand the etymology of the word. This will show why a word became to be used. Second, one must appreciate the history and continued use of the word. This becomes an indicator of change while maintaining relevance. From there, we can then develop the definition and improve its placement in our lexicon.
The word “strategy” conjures images of battle plans and communication across many levels. It’s a word steeped in power and purpose, carrying the promise of victory. But how did this word go from Greek military jargon to a ubiquitous mantra? How did this become so incredibly rich and important in our contemporary lexicon?
The etymology of this word is interesting. It begins in ancient Greece. Here we find the word’s earliest iterations: στρατηγία (stratēgia), meaning “to lead an army,” and στρατηγός (stratigós), the title given to the highest military authority. Note that word authority usually is tied to an individual rather than a collective. These terms capture the essence of strategy in its nascent form. A stratigós would focus on warfare and the orchestration of manoeuvres. Ultimately, the purpose was to claim victory over adversaries identified by the state.
Within this, we see that stratēgia has several components. First, it comes from a place of authority. Second, it provides direction through ambiguity. Finally, it intends to achieve a state of elevation over someone else.
However, ancient Greeks lacked our modern, singular conceptualisation of “strategy.” Instead, they employed nuanced expressions like στρατηγικὴ ἐπιστήμη (“general’s knowledge”) and στρατηγοῦ σοφία (“general’s wisdom”). These terms suggest a broader conception. They encompass not only tactics but also leadership, logistics, and even an understanding of psychology.
The mediaeval period witnessed a metamorphosis of the word “strategy.” Count Guibert’s seminal work, La Stratégique (1779), redefined the term as the “art of planning and conducting military operations.” This lay the groundwork for “strategy” to transcend the battlefield and permeate other realms of human action. Perhaps the military figure with the most impact on strategy is Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831). Clausewitz was a Prussian General who wrote the book entitled On War. This is probably the most famous reflection about strategy. According to the Prussian General, a war is a contest between two individuals. On the other side of the world, Sun Tzu writings on strategy were also an important study on the concept. Whereas Clausewitz advocated using the greatest amount of force, the Chinese philosophy placed more value on cunning. Most scholars agree that Sun Tzu and Clausewitz’ writings on military strategy function as primers for the topic.
By the 19th and 20th centuries, “strategy” embarked on a march into other domains. While military strategy continued to evolve alongside technological advancements and doctrinal shifts, it was the application of strategic principles to business, politics, and even sports that truly resonated. From corporate manoeuvring in markets to MMA fighters plotting their next move, “strategy” became a unifying and reported term. It had moved beyond the vocabulary of war and cemented its importance in any form of planning.
The 20th century saw a significant expansion of strategy studies within universities. This is where the study of strategy started to transcend the profession of arms on a much larger scale. The aftermath of World War I spurred interest in understanding and preventing future conflicts. This lead to the establishment of international relations departments with a focus on strategic studies. In 1919, the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) launched its International Studies department, offering courses on military strategy and diplomacy. Similarly, American universities like Harvard and Yale began incorporating strategy into their curriculum.
However, the story of “strategy” is not confined to a neatly bound historical narrative. The 21st century presents novel challenges that demand continuous adaptation. Terms like “disruptive strategy” and “agile strategy” reflect the need to navigate such systems. Lets also add in strategic mangement, complexity theory, and game theory. All of these terms are relatively recent additions to the growing field of stragety.
Today, “strategy” boasts a multifaceted personality. On one hand, it manifests as the grand plan. It presents itself as a meticulously crafted roadmap guiding long-term objectives. Whether it’s a corporate vision statement or a political campaign manifesto, this macro-level arc provides the framework for decision-making and resource allocation. On the other hand, “strategy” also encompasses the cunning maneuver, the tactical execution of the grand plan. These are all microcosmic expressions of the word in action.
This is where the use of the word can become confusing. Just as the kickboxer can successfully implement their strategy over 9 minutes, a general may take years. Yet, both use the word and we somehow understand the complexity of their intent. This makes the word so fascinating. It means so much as it’s extremely ethereal, yet tangible.
The current U.S. military definition of strategy as defined by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff as “the art and science of employing the armed forces of a nation to secure the objectives of national policy by the application of force or the threat of force.” There are a few things we can extract from this definition that may assist in improving the word.
The words “art” and “science” encompass a depth of human thinking with complexity. This simple pairing is a powerful metaphor for the dual nature of strategy. On the one hand, it’s a precise science. This is built on data analysis, historical precedents, and rigorous simulations. General’s study troop movements like mathematicians solving equations. They calculate logistics and consider the potential outcomes of every course of action. But then there’s the art which lies in the intuition. It’s the flash of inspiration and the courage to take a calculated gamble. Think of Patton’s audacious tank drives, Rommel’s cunning desert tactics, or Hannibal’s encirclement at Cannae. However, at the point when a leader blends art and science together, all they have is a theory. And that is wonderfully elegant.
Next is the use of “secure the objectives.” The crux of military strategy lies in the arrival of the “end state.” These “end states” are encompassing objectives. They include such events as the seizure of terrain or the dissolution of entire regimes. The purpose of an “end state” serve as the foundation for planning and resource allocation. Every decision, manoeuvre, and expenditure of resources becomes an aligned step towards this.
The parallels between warfare and business extend beyond metaphorical terrain. Just as generals plot campaigns to secure victories, executives orchestrate to conquer markets and dominate competition. The art and science apply equally to boardrooms and operational theatres.
So, where does this leave us with our definition? Well, let’s identify a few components that help us improve the meaning.
First, there is always a theory for success. This comes from a unique blend of analysis and gamble. It is also crucial to note that before a strategy is put into play, it is nothing more than an idea. As emotive as humans can become on the road to success, it is still an idea.
Second, there is always a threat or competition. I want to use these two words interchangeably, as no victory exists in a vacuum. You must win against something. There must be something to conquer or defeat. If not, it is simply the status quo. Therefore, strategy navigates through a perpetual threat or contest against a chosen adversary. Remember, sometimes the biggest threat is yourself. After all, competing against yesterday is far harder than we want it to be.
Lastly, strategy is stated by some form of authority. More commonly, it is stated by leaders. They articulate the “why” behind the strategy and align the efforts of the masses. Leaders aim to inspire commitment and match actions with the overarching goal. Without this clear direction, strategic efforts risk devolving into chaos and failure.
Therefore, I propose a development on the definition of the word strategy.
Strategy is a theory for success on the basis of competition as dictated by leadership.
Perhaps the agreements of the word’s definitions can drive future successes. Perhaps my definition of the word could use work.
The evolution of “strategy” is a testament to humanity’s relentless pursuit of understanding, planning, and execution. Ultimately, this shows how we want to master the circumstances we face. Strategy serves as a powerful tool for those who dare to think ahead, adapt to the unexpected, and orchestrate actions.
As we venture into the ever-evolving landscapes of the future, the ability to wield the language of “strategy” will remain an essential element in navigating the complexities towards success.
Bilblography
- Oxford Dictionary 2023 edition.
- The Origin of Strategy by Rich Horwath. Stragetic Thinking Institute.
- Defining Military Strategy by Colonel Arthur F. Lykke Jr., US Army, Retired. Military Review.
