Companies always strategize for the business as usual, leaving unplanned events on a risk matrix (chance + impact) with little thoughts on responsive reaction. The recent crisis unveiled a clear need for further business preparedness as man-made and natural disruptive events become more frequent, and impactful.

Interestingly though, no one mentioned the time that managers are spending on frequent planning and revisions. Maybe the time has come to grab the opportunities out there in the market place when everyone is busy with short-term planning and revisions. This is an opportunity, especially for cash rich companies. It is unfortunate that we have lost the real meaning of strategy making when the discussion circles around short-term business cycle planning. I wish the competition is doing the same, else it could become fatal for some of the organisations.

The discussion missed out on the risk factor associated with the dynamic environment of forming strategies. Risk and uncertainty in the dynamic business environment will impact the strategy of any organization to a greater extent and one should be prepared to keep structure, processes, and resources in a mode of flexibility.

All of these discussions are focused on uncertanity, and getting a grip on uncertanity in these volatile times is the challenge. Everybody around the world seem to be shying off putting their best foot forward.

What a fun video! All these people taking themselves so seriously to say absolutely nothing new is hysterically funny. As a strategist “normal” shouldn’t even be an issue; the only constant is change. My amusement aside, what does come through is that these big companies are worried about increased competition from emerging economic powers and their ability, or not, to get an elephant to turn on a dime. The underlying answer is “no” so you better have access to enough capital to buy what you need. Business as usual, if you ask me.

Interesting to hear the panel’s view that M&A activity is expected to increase in the next twelve months, suggests the cash-rich companies have adopted a cautious wait-and-see approach; is this because there remains deep uncertainty about what the business environment will be? It may also explain the move toward shorter planning cycles.

The conversation reveals some very valuable comments and yet some very surprising—in my view—strange views on strategy:

1) strategy is about long-term development. As it is (and always was) impossible to absolutely predict the future, you cannot judge whether a strategy was successful or not by looking at the development of your business alone. You will have to look at the development of your business relative to your markets, and industry peers. This relieves you from changing your strategy all the time. Short-term strategy is an anachronism!

2) As especially for publicly traded companies it will never be sufficient to give “relative” guidance, you will always have to take on the short term own business performance view. Whether you are right or wrong with that guidance will strongly affect your share price, but never tell you whether your strategy is right or wrong. The two views should not be mingled!

These insights obviously leave even high-level strategists confused (to my surprise), but I think the key to getting it together is to leverage the power of strategic controlling and risk management. If you have a view on possible up- and downsides for your strategy on a root cause basis, you will be able to judge whether a deviation from your strategic path is actually critical and should trigger a revision of the strategy or whether it is fully in line with the possible outcomes.

Meld of strategy and operations—important observation, and despite the concern, hearing a strategist (Visa) recognize the critical importance of alignment was encouraging. Ten years ago a client established a year-round planning process to great benefit, so it rings true as a key improvement in the name of being nimble and flexible. Somehow this round table also brings home to me the limits of what any one leader can do and the importance of everyone—the positive impact that any truly effective employee can make, and how important it is to engage each one effectively—each one, wherever placed in the company. There is no magic bullet.

Some solid points made in this roundtable video but as far as the hype of “tectonic shifts” hinted at in the article, there wasn’t any evidence of that from this discussion.

A point not covered was consumer resistance to change and the very short memories people have (particularly Americans) regarding incorporating long-lasting changes in purchasing behaviors. Most will simply will return to old habits once economic conditions allow it. Maybe it would seem too crass to have mentioned that but no doubt their companies are counting on that amidst other strategic assumptions.

One comment I would have is how much these strategists appear to be looking inward rather than outward, which I think is more a concern of operations than strategy. I’d be more interested in what they see as the driving forces in their market places—such as consumer fear—rather than actions resulting from that fear, like a switch from credit to debit cards.