Let’s start with the term “above-average results”. If we define it as results that are significantly above (for instance) the industry average, we cannot say that strategy necessarily leads there. Why? Well, the purpose of strategy is to get us to the results we require, and in the real world, it’s not always about results above the average. For some owners may be rather important sustainable revenue, but for some pure growth because they feel more powerful or it underlines their social status. Superior results are, therefore, one of the goals – a goal that requires so-called competitive advantage, one of the most misunderstood, yet crucial terms for success, but it’s another story.

Obviously, right? Why am I even mentioning this? Because the similar statements are so frequent “Our strategy is to increase EBITDA by X% and the gross margin by Y%?.” This statement is most likely a result and the strategy should define how we reach it. Imagine the strategy as a path you have to choose. You can clearly say “To reach the required results, we are going to do this because of these reasons and, at the same time, we are NOT going to do this because of that.” Yes, it’s simplified, but realistically, this is the whole magic. It’s about choosing your path and following it strictly because you know the why behind and yes, you can change it, but not at every corner.

Strategical thinking indeed requires a level of abstraction that may be higher than in different business activities. It also requires data and information that are many times challenging to get and by nature, there is an ask to forecast the future with a certain probability. However, strategy is not only about forecasting the future, it’s a way how to build a future we want to live in. Also, there are fortunately multiple ways to connect strategy with results and connect it also with the daily business, and I’m not even mentioning exact ways how to find the competitive advantage. Strategy is a way to reach results and therefore the clear connection is absolutely necessary.

Imagine a road bicycle race where one of the racers rides only on the back wheel. Can this person finish the race? Well, a skilled racer probably yes. Can this person win? If the other riders use both wheels, they will most likely outperform our racer. It is similar to management and leadership. Each approach leads to results utilizing different methods and therefore a question of which one is more important in general doesn’t make much sense. Every organization may need a different ratio and for sure a different style of implementation management and leadership. At the same time, avoiding one of them may somehow work also but remember, it’s like riding one wheel only.

Let’s start with the term “above-average results”. If we define it as results that are significantly above (for instance) the industry average, we cannot say that strategy necessarily leads there. Why? Well, the purpose of strategy is to get us to the results we require, and in the real world, it’s not always about results above the average. For some owners may be rather important sustainable revenue, but for some pure growth because they feel more powerful or it underlines their social status. Superior results are, therefore, one of the goals – a goal that requires so-called competitive advantage, one of the most misunderstood, yet crucial terms for success, but it’s another story.

Obviously, right? Why am I even mentioning this? Because the similar statements are so frequent “Our strategy is to increase EBITDA by X% and the gross margin by Y%?.” This statement is most likely a result and the strategy should define how we reach it. Imagine the strategy as a path you have to choose. You can clearly say “To reach the required results, we are going to do this because of these reasons and, at the same time, we are NOT going to do this because of that.” Yes, it’s simplified, but realistically, this is the whole magic. It’s about choosing your path and following it strictly because you know the why behind and yes, you can change it, but not at every corner.

Strategical thinking indeed requires a level of abstraction that may be higher than in different business activities. It also requires data and information that are many times challenging to get and by nature, there is an ask to forecast the future with a certain probability. However, strategy is not only about forecasting the future, it’s a way how to build a future we want to live in. Also, there are fortunately multiple ways to connect strategy with results and connect it also with the daily business, and I’m not even mentioning exact ways how to find the competitive advantage. Strategy is a way to reach results and therefore the clear connection is absolutely necessary.

Imagine a road bicycle race where one of the racers rides only on the back wheel. Can this person finish the race? Well, a skilled racer probably yes. Can this person win? If the other riders use both wheels, they will most likely outperform our racer. It is similar to management and leadership. Each approach leads to results utilizing different methods and therefore a question of which one is more important in general doesn’t make much sense. Every organization may need a different ratio and for sure a different style of implementation management and leadership. At the same time, avoiding one of them may somehow work also but remember, it’s like riding one wheel only.

If we run fast but without any idea about the direction, we can still reach our destination, but only with significant luck. That’s how the strategy works, however, what if we know the direction and the path is clear but we can run neither fast nor effectively? Well, that is exactly what happens if we have a great strategy but we are not able to execute it. The result will be that we either reach the result too late, or we don’t reach it at all, because we expend all our resources. To sum it up, a strategy without execution won’t most likely lead to the required results and vice versa. To be fair, even the best strategy with excellent management can fail, but the probability is lower.

The purpose of management is to create, implement and continuously improve a system of the organization that leads to results. It means clarity, fairness, minimalization of concerns of the unknown, and creating an autonomous “organism”. So, yes, management can be in specific cases about sanctions and a “hard” approach. It can be also about the direction of individuals they need it – because they are, for instance. new in the organization. But it’s also for the best performers and autonomous individuals they need mostly pure leadership. Why? Because it brings clarity to areas such as processes, knowledge sharing, onboarding, stakeholder management, and similar.