Strategy: restoring the lost meaning

Abstract

Purpose The concept of strategy has lost its meaning. It is widely inflated and conflated with related notions and the consequences of that are unsettling for both practice and research. The purpose of this paper is to restore the lost meaning of strategy. Design/methodology/approach The paper exposes the inadequacy of the current definitions of strategy. It, then, suggests a more robust one based on a list of necessary dimensions of a good definition derived from an extensive review of the literature and ends with triggers for further reflection. Findings The multidimensionality of the proposed definition better reflects the complex nature of the strategy concept and restores its lost meaning. This makes it more robust than previous definitions in protecting the integrity of the concept of strategy from the creeping of insignificant concerns and “surplus” meaning. Research limitations/implications The new definition offers a new angle from which to reexamine the relationships between a number of usually paired concepts such as intention and action, planning and emergence, control and learning and formulation and execution. Practical implications The newly proposed definition has the potential to trigger creativity and to limit the practice of bad strategy. Originality/value The proposed definition raises the standard of what strategy is, avoids the sources of confusion, and reduces the chances of ascribing surplus meaning to the strategy concept.