Should your Strategy be Comprehensive?

Should your organisation's strategy aim to be comprehensive? It's a question that sparks lively debates among strategists. While the idea of a "comprehensive strategy" may sound ideal—suggesting thoroughness and preparation—there are significant nuances to consider. This was the focus of a recent #stratChat discussion, where strategists shared insights on balancing breadth and focus in strategic planning.

What Does “Comprehensive” Mean in Strategy?

The word "comprehensive" often implies a plan that covers every corner of an organisation. In reality, this can mean two things:

• A fit-for-purpose strategy: Thorough enough to address key priorities without overcomplicating.
• An overly detailed approach: Trying to manage every aspect of the business, leading to cumbersome plans that are hard to implement.

As one participant noted during the discussion: "The most effective plans I’ve seen are narrow, focused, and actionable—not sprawling mega-documents."

This raises an important point: Does a comprehensive strategy enhance performance, or does it risk overwhelming the organisation?

The Pitfalls of Overly Comprehensive Strategies

Many organisations fall into the trap of creating overly detailed strategies, assuming that more equals better. This can lead to:

1. Complexity Overload: Strategies with too much detail can be paralysing. Employees may struggle to connect their roles to the strategy’s goals, especially if it's buried in dense documents.
2. Inflexibility: Over-specified plans can limit an organisation’s ability to adapt to new opportunities or challenges.
3. Implementation Barriers: Teams may lose sight of priorities when everything appears equally important.

During #StratChat, one strategist observed: "The bigger the strategy, the better" is a flawed notion. It often results in plans that are unimplementable—or even unreadable.

When Narrow Strategies Work Better

The opposite approach—focusing on a narrower scope—often yields better results. Here's why:

• Clarity of Purpose: A targeted strategy is easier to communicate and execute. For example, a participant shared a story about a client who shifted focus to enhance political influence within their organisation. Most employees continued business as usual while a smaller team executed the strategic change.
• Efficiency: Narrow strategies encourage teams to "start fewer things and finish more of them."
• Flexibility: Less prescriptive plans can adapt to evolving circumstances.

However, there’s a catch: overly narrow strategies can leave gaps. It's crucial to ensure the strategy aligns with broader organisational goals and cascades effectively through all levels.

Striking the Right Balance: Comprehensive Enough

The ideal strategy finds the middle ground between comprehensiveness and focus. Here’s how:

1. Guidance, Not Micromanagement: Strategies should provide clear direction for priorities without prescribing every detail.
2. Scalable Approach: Use cascading strategies to address secondary and tertiary functions. This allows the core strategy to remain focused while ensuring alignment across the organisation.
3. Room for Adaptation: Strategies must leave space for adjustments as the business landscape changes.

As one participant noted, "Comprehensiveness doesn’t mean covering everything; it means being prepared for evolving needs while focusing on what truly matters."

Communicating Strategy Effectively

The success of any strategy hinges on clear communication. During the meeting, participants highlighted the importance of precision in language to prevent misunderstandings and ensure alignment. For example:

• Start with general principles and cascade them into specific actions.
• Avoid starting with a list of pet projects, as they rarely form a coherent strategy.
• Use common language to bridge gaps between teams and functions.

This approach ensures the strategy feels cohesive and actionable at all levels of the organisation.

Key Questions to Consider

When crafting your strategy, ask:

• Does the strategy solve the primary issue it’s designed to address?
• Is it clear enough for employees to understand how their roles contribute to success?
• Can it adapt to changes without losing focus?
• Have you ensured alignment through cascading strategies?

The Role of Minimum Viable Strategy (MVS)

A recurring theme in the discussion was the concept of Minimum Viable Strategy (MVS). This involves crafting a strategy that is as simple as possible while addressing the organisation's key needs. Think of it as the "Goldilocks zone" of strategy—not too detailed, not too vague.

Final Thoughts

So, should your strategy be comprehensive? The answer lies in its purpose. If "comprehensive" means addressing the organisation’s most critical issues while remaining adaptable, then yes. If it means covering every possible contingency or micromanaging every function, it’s likely a step too far.

A great strategy is one that guides, inspires, and adapts. It’s not about the length of the document but the clarity of the vision and the focus on execution.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)