A Better Strategy Model for a Better World
Shortcomings of the Current Model
Before we get into the new model, let’s take a quick look at why the existing one is ripe for change. Historically, companies begin by developing an overarching business strategy. It is often a very linear, time-intensive process: research, develop plan, implement, measure, rinse, repeat. Once this plan is in place, companies then develop separate strategies for other key business functions like marketing, HR, manufacturing, etc. These efforts are often siloed without the benefit of integration. Even the physical space in offices often separate these functions, with HR in one hallway, marketing in another, and finance in yet another. In best-case scenarios, these siloed functions work to align with business strategies, so they share common goals. Software applications have forced horizontal integration across functions, but we must go further than that for true integration. In worst-case scenarios, they work as completely separate entities with little commonality and no integration. In all cases, it’s a dated process ready for change.
I spoke with Mark Fuller, chairman of Rosc Global, co-founder of Monitor Group, now Deloitte Monitor, and former assistant professor at Harvard Business School. He shared his vast insights on the shortcomings of the current business strategy and how the new model delivers the type of framework necessary in today’s business climate:
I’m going to make two primary points about where today’s approach to strategy falls short. The first is there’s a nontrivial sin of omission with the concept of moral purpose. The collective service industry is very active in three of the four pillars of your strategy (business, technology, and marketing), but doesn’t deal with moral purpose, so it’s defective in that realm. There has long been this issue between the client and the consultant not talking about moral issues because they are somehow not businesslike. They’re embarrassing. And there are all kinds of reasons why. Numbers are okay to discuss because they’re businesslike. So it’s easy to show the client how much more
I’m going to make two primary points about where today’s approach to strategy falls short. The first is there’s a nontrivial sin of omission with the concept of moral purpose. The collective service industry is very active in three of the four pillars of your strategy (business, technology, and marketing), but doesn’t deal with moral purpose, so it’s defective in that realm. There has long been this issue between the client and the consultant not talking about moral issues because they are somehow not businesslike. They’re embarrassing. And there are all kinds of reasons why. Numbers are okay to discuss because they’re businesslike. So it’s easy to show the client how much more