The article examines the pigeon holed approach to teaching business strategy adopted in business schools. The writer believes strategies are unique to individuals (leaders) and cannot be reduced to a mechanical output from a technique oriented view. Real strategies are best kept under wraps and what is revealed is the essentials needed for its operationalisation. A technique oriented approach tends to send out misplaced signals to the budding managers

1. Business Strategy Consulting
Business strategy
Business strategy has many shades and is defined differently by different proponents based on
what one considers is the key focus of his theory / paradigm / postulate. Examples include
 the blue ocean strategy that espouses a clean slate approach, out of the box thinking,
unbounded by the past, bold, forward looking and claimed to be superior to other forms
of strategy development
 Porters five forces model of competitiveness that believes existence of sustainable
businesses depend purely on competitiveness driven by the five forces of competitiveness
 SWOT approach where strategy development is driven by an analysis of an existing
businesses’ strengths, weaknesses (constraints) opportunit ies and threats.
 The systems approach where a holistic integrated approach is taken in charting a strategy
Contrary to a pigeon holed approach that individual proponents espouse as above, strategy is the
thinking process in the mind of the strategist (business owner or the CEO). It is not something
that is bragged about to the public, put on ppts and broadcast. Such an approach demolishes and
neutralizes the fundamental premise of a strategy: to take on the competition / adversary by
surprise, swiftness and low reaction time, orchestrate unique benefits for the self and entry /
operational barriers for others, continuous evolution to always leave the competition / adversary
behind (trailing). Strategy keeps evolving all the time in the mind of the driver.
Strategy with several operational elements in sync, is put into action and observed for unfolding
outputs and outcomes, influences on connected elements and evaluating if collectively it makes
sense to stay on, tweak, abandon, adapt or adopt. Loud statements on strategic expertise
brandishing one tool or another are unrealistic not recognizing value derived, limitations,
contextual appropriateness and holism to deliver practical value.

2. Strategy building is never a consultants’ job without internalizing and living the life of the CEO
that reminds one of possibilities and limitations, many times no appreciated from a consultant’s /
an MBA’s shoe. Consultants, at best, can influence the thinking process of the strategist not be in
his shoe. Clients have as much or more to contribute to strategy development for problem
resolution, shifting gears, expansion, divestment, tackling competition, benefit from or
responding to policy imperatives, unfolding opportunities and so on.
Consultants can be of value in strategy development if they maintain a balanced closeness and
distance from the clients’ own experience on a long term basis. Consultants can possibly see a
strategic scenario through a tested template to preempt missing on vital elements and not more.
This may include holistic visibility into data and drawing meaning from it, possibly unbiased,
analysing policy and understanding competition / linkages, recognizing elements of SWOT.
Real strategy is rarely spoken about loudly other than serving a diluted / text book versions to
quench the thirst of equity analysts or funding agencies. Strategy is more often a game plan that
resides only in the mind of the leader. He may disclose / share elements of it, just as felt
necessary to carry his team along and give them a sense of belongingness in its conception and
implementation, in order to hit the long term agenda. Strategy is working with variety of
perceived influences, interconnectedness and dependencies and how to exploit such
relationships; an amalgam of knowledge, aggression, boldness, direction, determination, gut feel,
an unstated plan B for surprise negative outcomes, justification and counter arguments,
recognizing relevant strengths, potential negative fallouts, game plans of relevant external
constituents, counter plans, estimation of gains and losses, a sense of realism, recognizing
holism and dynamic nature of the operating environment.
Can we train one on strategy? Strategy is highly individualistic driven by thinking patterns and
thought processes, learnings from experiences, successes, failures and how one has sailed
through. It is highly individualistic even for individuals with apparent similarity. Similar
knowledge inputs doesn’t make similar strategic outputs. Strategy is knowledge interspersed
with an emotional mind, risk taking ability, leadership qualities to mobilise support and
resources needed to realize the strategy and confidence that one can. Strategy is not a cognitive
process but an affective too: the tenacity to standup and face the bullet, the ability to stand up

3. against odds, to take criticism, to differ and be so, to stand up against those who hound, the
ability to change the paradigm and rules of the game. Strategy is nothing without being different.
No strategy needed to follow the crowd; only operational skills, as the crowd has set the strategy
and the member only has to follow it, like a flock.
Strategy is never evolved in isolation, it is an amalgam of several elements defining an
operational environment and possible future. Strategy demands that we think future in the
context of where we are now. How much of the present should determine the future is an
individual’s choice and priority. By being different, one creates strategic stresses for
competition and that itself is the strategy. At the core, strategy: whether military, business or
even political are the same, only nuances vary. All are about unfulfilled need to achieve more, a
burning desire within, an unexplainable courage to fail and experiment, and the confidence to
sail through the impending storm. Strategy is about ability to see the invisible and act
innocuously unobtrusively before anyone can gain visibility into the invisible and draw meaning
from apparently unexplainable acts.
Look at companies who entered disruptive businesses like MS, Apple, Google, Infosys, TCS, …
No one could have drawn meaning from their visible acts in isolation, not even understand the
path they were taking. May be, even they couldn’t have imagined where they would be led, other
than a hazy picture that this is possible, but not whether it will happen. Strategy is setting a
course and inching towards it, always scrambling for opportunities and having an eye for threats
to what they set out to do. It is to have the mind of an entrepreneur: go with a passion in
achieving what one believe is possible.
Strategy is impossible without a belief that something that others have not tried or done is
possible. Could anyone imagine a company like ITC that was known for cigarette
manufacturing will get into agriculture, Hotel and now FMCG? Divisions across lines of
businesses or even attributes for success in different professions are very thin; a common thread
being determination to pursue one’s goal, a positive belief system, passion and the confidence to
face what unfolds. It is not to say that one doesn’t need planning, analysis, and so on; but above
all the cognitive qualities, the affective individual traits determine outcomes. Given the same set

4. of measurable and known conditions two individuals take different paths and perform differently.
Verdict on success or otherwise depends on the time elapsed over which ones measures
performance unlike fund managers show-casing performance by choosing convenient time
period. One can never write off another for good. There are legions of failed individuals rising
from the ashes, and many falling from riches to rags.
Objective of the strategist is to reveal as much of the strategy necessary to give meaning on ones
action to those he needs to collaborate with to achieve his vision. Stated vision is only a hazy
picture of ones’ mental model of strategy that may never be articulated. Strategy has many
elements in the nature of intrigue, bordering on illegality, unethical and even secretive which if
revealed would derail and endanger ones goal achievement. It may not even be comprehensible
to another. One can only comprehend only what is within ones’ realm of perception. Sometimes
there may not even be strategy, but only a passion that carried one forward. Business school case
studies on strategy tend to be more of a giving a legitimate meaning to an event in the language
of strategists, to sync with known theories to gain credibility among one’s social and
professional circles. Is it possible to give meaning to all that one does over some ones else’s
template?