Estratégia é caminho, é comportamento, não é destino

" “doing strategy” is not really about selecting objectives, targets or future states. (“We aim to be the best”) That’s too imprecise, and too easy to pay lip-service to.
.
It doesn’t matter whether you choose to start by discussing purpose, mission, values or culture (or anything else.) Whichever you begin with, it will turn out to be the rules you choose to live by that determine your future, not the targets you aim at.
.
You must start by asking yourselves – what are we going to be uncompromising about? This will tell the world (inside and outside the organization) who you are, what you are, and what are your vision, mission, purpose and values.
...
“What explains the relative failure of most organizations to create effective strategy? Part of the problem …can be traced to their interpretation of the word strategy itself…
.
In war, objectives can often be clearly defined, and so strategy is thought of as a means to a specific end. ....By contrast, goal orientation becomes arguably inappropriate when success has to be indefinitely sustained.”
.
I call this “acting as if there is no final whistle.” It means running the organization not to attain particular targets in a particular time frame, but recognizing that, one way or another, the organization will continue into the indefinite future."

Moi ici: Estratégia é caminho, não é destino. É importante estabelecer qual é o ponto de chegada num dado momento temporal futuro, mas isso de nada serve para realizar a transformação necessária. A transformação ocorre através das mudanças de comportamento do dia-a-dia, através das pequenas e grandes opções anónimas.
.
"It’s rather like thinking of an organization as a biological entity or a species. It’s not in the choice of objectives that a species differentiates and sustains itself, but through its special ways of adapting and responding to shifts in its environment.
.
Consider also the well-known computer simulation that, by specifying, in advance, some basic parameters (including the rules of reproduction) and then allowing the game of begin, wonderful patterns emerge, and some species flourish while others die out. (Moi ici: As simulações de Lindgren, por exemplo. Ainda me lembro do bang que fez na minha cabeça esta frase que se segue: "So who was the winner? What was the best strategy in the end? What Lindgren found was that this is a nonsensical question. In an evolutionary system such as Lindgren’s model, there is no single winner, no optimal, no best strategy. Rather, anyone who is alive at a particular point in time, is in effect a winner, because everyone else is dead. To be alive at all, an agent must have a strategy with something going for it, some way of making a living, defending against competitors, and dealing with the vagaries of its environment.” )
.
The differences between these “species” are not differences in objectives, targets, purpose or mission. The differences which really determine the future are the rules they employ to make their decisions when faced with choices."

.

Afinal de contas "nature evolves away from constraints, not toward goals"

.
Trechos retirados de "Strategy and the Fat Smoker" de David Maister.