“You Can’t Get What You Want Until You Know What You Want”: The Vital Distinction Between Strategic Thinking and Executional Planning.

What organizations call strategic planning has long since fallen from its pedestal. But even now, few people fully understand the reason: strategic planning is not strategic thinking. In my experience strategic planning often spoils strategic thinking and causes confusion around focus. This confusion lies at the heart of the issue: the most successful strategies are visions, not plans.

When you have a clear vision for where you are headed, you can strategically plan what is worth investing effort into (and what is not).

As Verne Harnish states, “It’s time to break apart a 50-year-old business tradition –strategic planning — and think about it in terms of two distinct activities: strategic thinking and executional planning.”

I’m not sure why the two words, strategy and planning, were ever lumped together. And I’ve been as guilty as anyone for spreading this term. In reality, effective strategy requires two very different ongoing processes and teams if you’re going to generate the kinds of results worthy of the effort that goes into a serious planning process. It’s even more critical if you want to ignite growth.

In this article, we’ll explore the critical distinction between strategic thinking and executional planning, drawing inspiration from the insights of business thought leaders like Verne Harnish and Jim Collins. We’ll unravel the essence of these two processes, understand their individual roles, and grasp how they intertwine to drive organizational success.

Strategic Thinking: Where do we play and how do we win?

The musician Joe Jackson once sang, “You can’t get what you want until you know what you want.” This lyrical wisdom underscores a fundamental truth in the realm of business strategy. Without a clear vision of your destination, execution becomes a shot in the dark, a scramble to check off tasks without a genuine understanding of where they lead.

Strategic thinking is the process of determining the direction you will take to achieve your vision.

In essence, it’s about answering the profound questions: “Where do we want to go?”, “Where do we want to play?”, “How do we win?”

Jim Collins, in his seminal work “Good to Great,” articulates the journey of great companies in three distinct phases. The first phase involves assembling a team of disciplined individuals. Similarly, in strategic thinking, the right team, often a subset of senior leadership, congregates to discuss and debate critical strategic questions.

This council of minds engages in regular, face-to-face interactions, often over casual meals, to dissect market segmentation, brand promises, differentiating activities, and the powerful Hedgehog Concept of strategic thinking. These discussions form the foundation for strategic decision-making. The objective is to provide counsel to the CEO, who holds the responsibility of shaping the strategic direction. The outcome? A clear picture of the destination you strive to achieve and a set of well-defined priorities aligned with the company’s strategic focus.

Strategic thinking is active and ongoing. It is about defining where you want to go and what you want to achieve. It’s an organic process. It’s a step-by-step process. It’s a developmental process. And it’s often very unclear as you’re going through it.

The Playbook of Executional Planning

Executional planning is about defining how you will implement your vision/how you will get to your destination. Having set the game plan, it’s time for the team to hit the ice and play their winning moves. Executional planning embodies the field plays — the meticulous steps required to translate strategic thinking into tangible action. It’s about determining how to get to the destination defined through strategic thinking.

Executional planning is the process of developing a blueprint for the work you will do against that direction.

In execution planning, senior leadership sets revenue and profit targets, collaboratively with input from the commercial team. They establish a concise set of priorities for the year, working closely with middle managers to cascade these priorities to specific departments or divisions.

These overarching objectives then trickle down to the frontline employees, who set their priorities for the upcoming 13 weeks. The entire organization becomes a synchronized team working towards a shared goal.

Alignment: The Key to Victory

The harmonious coexistence of strategic thinking and executional planning hinges on alignment.

While strategic thinking sets the destination and charts the course, executional planning propels the journey forward. It’s the coach’s strategy (executional planning) that transforms the game plan (strategic thinking) into action on the field.

Many organizations utilize frameworks like OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) to set priorities and gauge progress. Regardless of the specific framework, the key is to choose one and utilize it consistently. It’s not enough to have a great strategy; you must be able to articulate the strategic initiatives and execute them effectively.

The Path to Victory

In the dynamic world of high-growth companies, success hinges on understanding the nuanced difference between strategic thinking and executional planning, much like in sports where a game plan is essential for victory. Just as in sports, where knowing how to win is the first step toward victory, the journey to success begins with strategic thinking, setting the stage for the methodical implementation of executional planning. When these two components work in harmony, they create the path to victory, propelling organizations toward their ultimate goal: to win.

As Joe Jackson wisely reminds us, you can’t get what you want until you know what you want.

It’s a delicate balance, a nuanced art, and the heartbeat of thriving enterprises in today’s competitive arena.

Thanks for reading. I’m John McAuliffe and I help companies accelerate growth more consistently and with greater predictability using repeatable processes.