Strategy is not superior to tactics. At best, strategy and tactics can be integrated as equals. In this day and age it is looking increasingly unlikely that a senior leader will come up with one brilliant idea from the top of the organization and cascade it downward through the chain of command. Rather, we live in a world where ground-level employees determine business success; information is diffused through friends and cube-mates; and the best ideas move diagonally through the organization’s subject-matter experts with minimal regard for the org chart.
A classic example of the disputed importance of strategy is the difference between Workforce Analytics and Strategic Workforce Planning. I routinely use Workforce Analytics to help a variety of managers and professionals adapt to an unpredictable array of questions. Workforce Analytics has a kind of “older sister” business practice called Strategic Workforce Planning which has been around for a little longer. Strategic Workforce Planning is the practice of using analytics in the formal process or organizational re-design. The re-design is intended to align human resources to internal and external context, a forecast about the future, and organizational strategy. It makes perfect sense on paper.
In my opinion, there are three major frustrations with strategic alignment. First, it makes a presumption that organizational strategy in your organization is in its prime. If your org strategy is in its final approval stage or a complete re-write of that strategy is about to begin, then alignment to that strategy is a dubious effort. Second, if any of the organization’s major leaders are in transition (both incoming and outgoing) their personal enthusiasm for the formal strategy could be in play. To some extent, strategy is a debate amongst executives, and that debate can shift as the players are in flux.
Third, forecasting is a moving target. In the middle of the Strategic Workforce Planning process there is an attempt to identify a future state and assess scenarios where a different staff composition would prepare the organization for that future. However, society is changing so quickly and in so many ways that speculation about any likely future state has the shelf life of about a month. Try writing down your predictions about the future on a piece of paper and then come back to it in 30 days. With the passage of time you will either be humbled, or you will assert that it’s been doctored and you couldn’t have written something so clueless. As such, alignment to strategy is brief, making the overall process less tangible and less relevant.
A good example of the struggles of strategic alignment is Uber. Uber appears to have been built around a culture of rules-breaking on taxi licensing, grey-ethics exploitation of private information about a customer’s physical location, and a backroom culture of dot-com, locker-talk bravado. With just a little bit of blowback from the public, Uber has been obliged to change senior leaders and reverse elements of the very organizational culture that made it great. Good luck identifying what their sector will look like in two months, what this week’s executive team is going to do about it, and calibrating staff accordingly. They might be fine in the near future, but we won’t really know until after the fact.
Consider by contrast an impactful tactical change which adapts to emerging evidence. There is evidence that an equitable and inclusive work environment fosters better commitment and idea sharing. There is evidence that workplace incivility has a dramatic impact on general productivity. There is evidence that customer engagement is hyper-sensitive to employee engagement. It is possible to develop a supposition that millennials are quitting at a higher rate, only to discover evidence that this is more nuanced and is really about career advancement at all ages. These insights can have a dramatic impact on an organization’s opinion about what their core function should be, how managers should treat employees, and what kinds of employees and managers you should be hiring or promoting.
Then you would need to double-down and anticipate that even more disruptive evidence will continue to arrive at an even faster rate. And if you did not adapt in this manner, you can bank on the fact that this adaptation is happening at rival organizations. This brings us back to the possibility of even more leadership change and yet another re-vamp of organizational strategy.
If you are a manager, a human resource leader, or an analyst you might need to abandon all delusions that you can chart a clear path. Rather, you are in the mosh pit of life, and your prime directive is to keep moving and not get hurt. Keep your tempo, have fun, and follow the mood. You cannot simply obey the directives of those with money or rank. You must arrive at work fresh and rested, and play hard. Every day.