Remember the classic Seinfeld episode?

This funny story of George's potential employment with Vandelay Industries, part of what is reportedly Jerry Seinfeld's favorite episode of his show, came to mind a few days ago when both Kraft Foods and Abbott Laboratories announced names for their new spin-off companies.

It happened several times this past week.  I'm networking and meet a business person.  I introduce myself as a consultant dealing in organizational strategy.  The other person responds with something like, "Oh, I'm in strategy, too, I'm in change management."  Yet, when we talk it becomes clear they are not operating at the strategic level, they deal with tactics, facilitating the introduction and development of projects, programs or processes in or between functional areas or departments (IT and accounting, for instance).

Does a cat know it's a cat?  If it knows it's cat - or doesn't know it's a cat - how does that influence its behavior? As a cat owner, I can tell you cats are highly assertive and very effective at getting their way.  Sam the cat has me well trained to meet his needs.  I am not sure what he thinks he is, but he has a strong self identity from which flows the set of actions he takes every day: sleep, eat, play, roam, watch birds, seek affection, bite, and so on.

As a strategic planning professional, I'm driven by these questions: How can I be a better strategic planner What's "state of the art" and "cutting edge" in strategic planning; What are significant strategic planning trends? What are the problems with strategic planning and how can they be addressed to improve planning use, process and outcomes? I've initiated discussions to try to get at these issues in three LinkedIn groups: Strategic Planning Xchange, Association for Strategic Planning and Strategic Planning Society. The discussions have been robust, offering great insight on planning issues and trends.

Strategies are the major planned steps that will move the organization across the strategic gap from where it is today and where it otherwise is heading to the brighter future offered by the organization's shared vision of success. Organizational success most always arises from crafting and executing strategies to move toward a vision.

Strategic planning occurs in a realm that can make operations, sales and other highly tactical, results-focused people very uncomfortable.  Taking a big step back, pushing thought laterally, entertaining other realities, trying to look over the horizon to see what is or will be there, gaming various futures and seeking strategies that will reroute or even upend the organization can be quite unnerving to people who are focused on winning the current battle being fought on the ground.Yet these people are to be celebrated, because they are the implementers.  Without implementing strategies, however elegant the strategic plan and resulting strategies are, the organization will go nowhere and certainly will not change for the better.

There's the idea...and then there's making it happen. I think we should be focusing on the "ideas versus execution" challenge. The idea is important, but the execution is more important.  Seeing the mountain and saying, "hey, let's climb it" is far different than actually climbing it.

Serial entrepreneurs like me typically retain strong memories of our first big entrepreneurial venture, sometimes great, sometimes not so great. Whatever the outcome, we are best served by learning from what we did, so in future ventures we avoid what did not serve us well.

The speed of strategy is not related to calendar time.  Timing for the right market move, investment or shift in focus is predicated on opportunity or threat, and ability, not the start of the quarter or year.  Sometimes the need for commitment to or change in strategy is slow in developing, other times it arises lightning fast. The annual budgeting and resource allocation cycle is of course a key step in plan implementation.  But it should not drive the strategic planning process.  Finding winning strategies and getting on the road to implementing them should be driven by opportunity, need, threat, change, competition and other similar factors.  Like budgeting, planning should be recurring, but just making it a rote process ahead of budgeting disconnects it from the events that make planning so important.   Fundamentally, the time to plan is when you either don't have strategies that are pulling you to an idealized future vision for the organization or when your strategies are not longer effective or appropriate.

The nomenclature issue has vexed me throughout my planning career, most recently as I prepared to sit for the Strategic Management Professional certification examination.  The study materials and references covered the gamut of planning practices, systems and approaches.  It was obvious that no standard language exists in strategic planning.  (The CPAs and CFOs have it easy, with accounting organizations and governmental bodies promulgating accounting standards.  As long as you know what set of accounting standards you are following, you can look up the term and know what it means!)

Talking this morning with a serial entrepreneur whom I highly respect, the question of business scale came up.  What's the right size for your business?  Should you stretch to grow?

I have long understood that strategic planning and strategic management are about successfully adapting to change. A new construct I was exposed to that addresses the difficulties of change management is Stephen Haines' Iceberg Theory of Change. It states that while the focus of change management is almost always on on "what to do" - the 13% of the iceberg that is visible, which Haines calls "content" - the success of adapting to change depends critically on what's not visible.