Strategy : Survival first, Creating fear next

I see many managers (Senior ones too) use the term strategy to sound grand. Most of the times they can't differentiate strategy from tactics and it disheartens me. The most abused word in corporate India is Strategy. Strategy as I see is marketing direction, tactics is competitive angle. There are in world today many good Marketers, but they see too many things at once. I see only one thing, namely the competition's main body. I strive to crush it, confident that secondary matters will then settle themselves. 

Strategy, operations, and tactics routinely affect the dimensions of any organisational fight to survive, each in a different manner. For instance, the strategist must aim at the competition's center of gravity, which often is the organisation’s will to fight, or perhaps the key resources or the delicate bond that holds key employees together. The operational manager's center of gravity is the mass of the competition's distribution/Supply chain and its ability to control its managerial force.



To cite an example, recently i caught with one of my CEO friends over coffee. The conversation went like this..

CEO : So what is the strategy for 2014?

Me : Remains same

CEO : You have had an issue and you mean to say you are making no change

Me : Issue is of perception created based on one incident, we will tackle it through some tactical responses but overall we continue on our path to be perceived as ..............., ........., ..... brand & most of the activation as well as communication continues delivering the same message

CEO :  You are talking long term, I am talking strategy for six months..

Me : Tactical response is to ..

CEO : Strategy

Me : Well life of brand is more than mine and yours, one incident needs series of tactical responses without loosing focus on consumers & brand goals... 

CEO : That is 

Me : Giving ownership of brand to Consumers is longterm objective & it drives strategy..

He was confused and looked disappointed..

1. Strategy is about survival

If consumers don't choose you, you are dead. 

Strategy may dictate whether or not to fight, but operations will determine where and when to fight and tactics how to conduct the fight

2. Strategy is about perception

Perception is reality don't rely on facts

3. Strategy is about being different

Being first, owning a USP, Heritage, First to market.. all are differentiating

4. Strategy is about knowing competition

Do you have abetter strategy than competition?

5. Strategy is about specialisation

Focus on one big idea and pursue it

6. Strategy is about being simple

So simple that everyone understands the essence may not be the words

7. Strategy is about leadership

Keep the competition guessing, Off balance..

8. Strategy is about reality

Keep feet on ground

Simple steps i undertake :

First, “a careful balancing of means and ends, efforts and obstacles” brings out the true economy of force, the careful allocation of available resources and organisational willpower to the achievement of the strategic aims. It further connotes the need to avoid keeping large reserves in pointless inactivity to the rear and, equally important, employing large resources to achieve minor, secondary objectives. It calls for the correct timing of the employment of sufficient resources/Force and above all requires the achievement of a carefully calculated balance at all stages of brand operations between ends and means, between inevitably conflicting priorities for the employment of strictly finite resources. The object of everything at the levels of both strategy and operational art is the destruction of the enemy’s state of equilibrium, ideally by means of psychological domination before the decisive battle physically opens.

Second, the need “to make war a real science ” as Napoleon said it. By real, Napoleon meant living and effective. Brand warfare must be conducted in a realistic, practical, and decisive fashion. There is no place for posturing or “phoney-war” attitudes - chessboard maneuvers designed to avoid a major battle at all costs. The attritional stage, battle, is only intended as preparation. Once you commit, no point dithering.

Third, the absolute must is to have highly motivated and regimented Operational team. They must be closely controlled. Left on their own to think or divided by many hundreds of miles from marketing, the CEO , the results could be (and frequently are) rampant indecision, rivalry, indiscipline - and failure. 

Thoughts of a conservative economist -Copyrighted work. 

Jawahar lal Nehru, Flawed legacy of a patriot!

“By education I am an Englishman, by views an internationalist, by culture a Muslim,& a Hindu only by accident of birth."
- Nehru

For such a man to continue using the honoric 'Pandit' with his name to denote his brahaminical lineage is hypocritical as was most of his conduct in office. On one hand he could be generous with subordinates once he was convinced of their loyalty, on the other he could be petty, vindictive & tantrum throwing with someone he felt threatened by - Look at his conduct with Sardar patel & Rajaji.

As we celebrate the birth anniversary of freedom fighter Jawaharlal Nehru, important that we dispassionately analyse legacy of PM Nehru.

Important to know why all leftist / durbari historians gang up to defend Nehru, much more than any member of dynasty (Indira, Rajiv). 

At the core, the dynasty milks the still remaining affection for freedom fighter Nehru, although almost all his policies were disastrous.

Just take 3 examples -

a) Nehru stifling free speech by carving out many exceptions;

b) Nehru's Fabian socialism;

c) dynastic succession.

If we look at it, all of Indira G's excess during 1970s' can be legitimately argued to be logical outcomes of Nehru's "original sins."

Emergency a logical extreme of Nehru stifling free speech ; Indian economic story going bust a logical outcome of Nehru's socialism..

Perpetuating dynasty to son, wife of son, and so on, a logical outcome of Nehru letting Indira become Congress President in 1959.

In 60s, many E Asian countries ditched socialism. In 70s China followed. India started in 80s, but really in '91. Nehru dynasty responsible. Indira clung on to socialism, not even out of conviction - but simply for power. She is the individual most responsible for Indians' misery.

From late 60s to early 80s - an entire generation almost, was unnecessarily wasted. Millions of kids stunted, under-fed, under-educated.

I do think Nehru was a patriot - but his love for India was abstract. He very much had contempt for ordinary Indians. Communist China/Russia employed "jhatka", Indira and the dynasts have employed "halal". Like the burning frog one does not notice it.

There is plenty of material of material of support his fights with Sardar patel even calling him communal.. Read biography of MKK Nair..Some excerpts..

“The difference of opinion between Nehru and Patel explains Nehru’s personal animosity towards Patel. An incident that I heard of is illustrative of the personal grudge that Nehru, the great leader, displayed. The very day Patel died in Bombay, Nehru sent two notes, which, incidentally, were routed through V P Menon to the State Affairs Ministry: the first one was to surrender the Cadillac car used by Patel to the Foreign Affairs Ministry; and the second note was that, in case anyone wished to attend the funeral ceremony of Patel they should do so at their own expense. When he received the second note, V P Menon summoned all the concerned officers to his Ministry and, without disclosing the contents of note, collected the names of the officers, who wished to attend the function, and bought them two-way tickets to Bombay at his own personal expense. When Nehru heard of this, he was furious.”

Legacy of Nehru dynasty's rule is that there are millions of Indians who have no basic amenities and dignity of life.