There are words that lose their meaning through overuse, and “strategy” is one of them.
Originally, strategy was the ability to link an intention to a trajectory, to prioritize resources, and to give up certain options in order to make room for others. In short, it is the art of making consistent choices over time and, under no circumstances, accumulating contradictory priorities.
Today, however, it refers to anything and everything, and above all, it is used to say that one exists. It has become a status marker: one no longer manages a department, one carries out a strategy.
In short:
- The term “strategy” is increasingly overused, mistakenly applied to anything perceived as important, thereby losing its original meaning linked to coherent choice and prioritization over time.
- Businesses accumulate sector-specific strategies (HR, IT, marketing, etc.) which, in the absence of a unified vision, often become inconsistent, competing or disconnected from the overall direction.
- The word “strategy” has become more of a status marker than a management tool, used to assert a position within the organization rather than to collectively guide action.
- This strategic inflation leads to a disarticulation of functions, where each department acts according to its own logic, to the detriment of overall consistency and efficiency.
- There can only be one business strategy, and functional variations only make sense if they are part of this common and shared trajectory.
“Strategic” simply means “important”
This is the initial misunderstanding: we confuse importance with strategy. A function, an activity, or a subject can be essential without being strategic. Recruitment is essential, as is cybersecurity and, of course, customer satisfaction, but none of these necessarily fall within the scope of strategy in the sense of a management decision, an overall trade-off, or a prioritization over time.
The word “strategy” has gradually taken on another function and has become a tool for internal recognition. To say that you have a strategy means that you are not involved in execution; it affirms a distance from everyday life, a rise in status. Strategy is no longer a management tool but a communication instrument.
This shift is anything but neutral, because in their quest to be strategic, each department asserts its own legitimacy, its own roadmap, its own internal consistency. As a result, everyone ends up detaching themselves from the collective goal that they claim (and must) serve, and the business is transformed into an agglomeration of micro-strategies that ignore each other and sometimes contradict and oppose each other.
The illusion of functional sovereignty
This is a form of disguised sovereignty. Each department wants to exist according to its own logic, scope, and vocabulary.
The HR strategy talks about attractiveness, key skills, and corporate culture, the IT strategy talks about infrastructure, agility, and the cloud, and the marketing strategy talks about customer experience, branding, and data. Each has its own indicators, roadmaps, priorities, and timelines, and while this often makes sense within its own scope, it rarely does so on a global scale.
When we take a step back, we realize that these strategies do not always converge. On the contrary, they pile up, sometimes ignore each other, oppose each other, and often contradict each other. Communications makes a brand promise that HR cannot deliver on internally, IT implements tools that managers do not understand or that even run counter to their operational needs, and marketing sells an innovation that product management struggles to deliver.
Everyone works methodically and with conviction, undoubtedly putting their heart and soul into it, but without a single direction, the business resembles an orchestra where each musician plays their own score. With talent, certainly, but without a conductor.
The most ironic thing about all this is that everyone thinks they are contributing to the corporate strategy, yet no one really sees it anymore.
Strategy as a language of power
It must be said that the word has become a social code. In many businesses, saying that you are working on something strategic no longer refers to a fundamental approach but a way of asserting status.
One no longer manages an action plan, one defines a strategy. One no longer coordinates, one drives strategic momentum. One no longer seeks to solve a problem, one rethinks the trajectory. By wrapping every initiative in flattering, even grandiose, semantics, we end up convincing ourselves that a strategy is well thought out because it is complicated, when in reality it is just confusing.
This is how we create a strategic mille-feuille. Leaders spend more time arbitrating between internal strategies than driving the business’s strategy, and the word ends up neutralizing energies instead of unifying them.
A course to be rediscovered
There is only one strategy in a business: that of the business itself.
The rest is plans, roadmaps, variations, and only makes sense if it serves that course. HR, marketing, IT, and finance all play a part in implementation, but in no way determine the meaning or trajectory. This is an essential distinction because it determines collective consistency.
This does not mean that the autonomy of each function should be curtailed, quite the contrary. But autonomy only has value within a shared framework. Being strategic does not mean claiming independence, it means placing your actions in the right place and in the right direction.
Business strategy cannot be broken down into pieces. It can be translated, interpreted, and adapted, but it remains one. When it ceases to be one, the business ceases to have one.
Business strategy cannot be broken down into pieces. It can be translated, interpreted, and adapted, but it remains one. When it ceases to be one, the business ceases to have one.But without a shared vision and a common language, the outcome is a foregone conclusion, and instead of converging, everyone diverges without their corner. Perhaps business design would be a good approach to converge on the operational implementation of business strategy instead of everyone building their own (EDGY: a common language to align identity, experience, and operations).
Bottom line
Contemporary organizations are saturated with strategies in the same way that we are saturated with information. Everyone wants to leave their mark, define their vision, and show their importance, but by trying to make everything strategic, we forget that strategy is not a sum but a line that connects ambitions to decisions, decisions to resources, and resources to results.
To answer your questions…
The term “strategy” has become a catch-all word used for anything and everything. Once synonymous with consistent choices over time, it is now used to display status. Every department wants “its strategy,” at the risk of multiplying contradictory plans. As a result, the business loses its common direction and overall consistency.
An activity can be essential without being strategic. Strategy involves choices, priorities, and sometimes sacrifices. Confusing importance with strategy leads to scattered efforts and a loss of sight of the business’s overall trajectory.
When each department develops its own strategy, visions diverge. Projects contradict each other, tools are no longer aligned, and energy is wasted. The business becomes a collection of silos moving forward without a common direction.
The word “strategic” is often used to enhance the value of a function or position. This shift transforms a management tool into a discourse of influence. Complexity is confused with relevance, and decisions are lost in an excess of rhetoric.
By reaffirming that there is only one strategy: that of the business. HR, marketing, and IT plans must be aligned with this strategy. A shared vision and common language make it possible to reconcile autonomy and collective consistency.
Image credit: Image generated by artificial intelligence via ChatGPT (OpenAI)
