NEED FOR GOOD STRATEGY VERSUS THE DRUG ABUSE PROBLEM

For The Bohol Tribune

In This Our Journey

NESTOR MANIEBO PESTELOS

Let me share with you some gems of thought from the book, Good Strategy/Bad Strategy by Richard P. Rumelt, described as “one of the world’s most influential thinkers on strategy and management.” He is considered by the prestigious The Economist “as one of the twenty-five living persons who have had the most influence on management and corporate practice.”

Another magazine, McKensey Quarterly, profiled him uniquely as “strategy’s strategist,” to further stress his significant contribution to strategy formulation not only by giant corporations but also by relatively small organizations in the educational and not-for-profit worlds.

I chanced upon the book while looking for something that could be put to good use in this continuing saga to advocate and demonstrate how to address effectively the ever-growing drug menace in our midst.

Let us start with what he says on page 108 of the book’s paperback edition: “No matter how desirable it might be to stop the use of illegal drugs, it is not a proximate objective because it is not feasible within the present legal and law-enforcement framework. Indeed, the enormous efforts directed at this objective may only drive out the small-time smuggler, raise the street price, and make it even more profitable for the sophisticated drug cartels.”

He argues here for identifying a narrower and, therefore, a more winnable objective. Thus he observes that “every organization faces a situation where the full complexity and ambiguity of the situation is daunting.”

The noted strategist asserts:  “An important duty of any leader is to absorb a large part of that complexity and ambiguity, passing on to the organization a simpler problem – one that is solvable. Many leaders fail badly at this responsibility, announcing ambitious goals without resolving a good chunk of ambiguity about the specific obstacles to be overcome.”

For him, to be a responsible leader is “more than a willingness to accept the blame.” To be such a leader means setting proximate objectives and handing the organization a problem it can actually solve.”

Earlier at the start of Chapter 7, he asserts that “one of a leader’s most powerful tools is the creation of a good proximate objective – one that is close enough at hand to be feasible.” He says a proximate objective “names a target that an organization can reasonably be expected to hit, even overwhelm.”

He observes: “Many writers on strategy seem to suggest that the more dynamic the situation, the farther ahead a leader must look. This is illogical. The more dynamic the situation, the poorer your foresight will be. Therefore, the more uncertain and dynamic the situation, the more proximate a strategic objective must be.

”

The author adds: “The proximate objective is guided by forecasts of the future, but the more uncertain the future, the more its essential logic is … not of looking far ahead,” but rather of “taking a strong position and creating options” to address current problems.

Rumelt cites the lesson to be learned from the game of chess: “One does not win a chess game by always selecting moves that are directly aimed at trying to mate the opponent or even trying to win a particular piece. For the most part, the aim of a move is to find positions for one’s pieces that (a) increase their mobility, that is, increase the options open to the them and decrease the freedom of operation of the opponent’s pieces, and (b) impose certain relatively stable patterns on the board that induce enduring strength for oneself and enduring weakness for the opponent.”

While reading this chapter on proximate objectives, I was actually breaking down in my head the myriad tasks and key players involved in the so-called war on drugs. I realized the need to define proximate or feasible objectives at each level of engagement in this campaign and to cascade down to the lower levels, e.g. local government, community, household, the concern to reduce the demand for drugs and simultaneously on the problem piece by piece rather than have all this noise and pronouncements at the higher or macro levels about the same boring messages on the evils of drug use without specifying proximate or feasible objectives at each level to win this war.

Indeed we must zero in on those pockets of opportunities at each level and achieve victories by defining actionable and winnable objectives. As in many advocacies and campaigns, this will require leadership by those who are supposed to govern us at each level. If this is wanting, then we just hope that an enlightened citizenry and any of existing institutions, such as the Church, civil society or the local business community, which is severely affected by the impact of drug addiction on the economy, may take such leadership role and adopt more effective ways to deal with the social problem which is fast developing as a major crisis in our midst.

Hence, the need for us ordinary mortals most affected by the crisis is to know a little bit about strategy in the hope that most of us can be active participants in this war we must win for us and future generations.

On this matter, I can only contribute some precious lessons from this book I have found useful in clarifying good strategy from a bad one from someone who has had “a lifetime of experience at strategy work- as a consultant to organizations, as a personal adviser, as a teacher and as a researcher.”

Let me summarize some of these lessons from this book -

First, a good strategy “acknowledges the challenges being faced and provides an approach to overcoming them. And the greater the challenge, the more a good strategy focuses and coordinates efforts to achieve a powerful competitive punch or problem-solving effect.”

Hence, it is more than the usual exhortation to achieve a goal or vision. It involves so much more. It must not be equated with success or an organization’s ambition or goal. Strategy to be a useful tool should not be confused with “ambition determination, inspirational leadership, and innovation.”

I find this definition quite useful: “Ambition is drive and zeal to excel. Determination is commitment and grit. Innovation is discovery and engineering of new ways to do things. Inspirational leadership motivates people to sacrifice their own and the common good.”

Strategy is often confused with goal setting. The author says: “Strategy is about how an organization will move forward. Doing strategy is figuring how to advance the organization’s interests. Of course, a leader can set goals and delegate to others the job of figuring out what to do. But that is not strategy. If that is how the organization runs, let’s skip the spin and be honest – call it goal setting.”

In this sense, strategy is linked to action or a set of actions considered vital to address specific obstacles or problems. A good strategy, according to Rumelt, has an essential logical structure consisting of diagnosis, a guiding principle and coherent action.

Once we get familiar with these three components which he calls the kernel of strategy, we are in a better position to achieve specific goals in pursuit of a mutually-agreed vision. Applied in the current situation in Bohol and the country as a whole, faced with disintegration of family and community cohesiveness due to the growing dominance of illegal drug use, it is important that ordinary citizens and their organizations learn the basics of strategy formulation.

Their vigilance must seek the only remedy left, aside from localized actions, which is “to demand more from those who lead.”

As the book says: “More than charisma and vision, we must demand good strategy” from those who lead or those who pretend to lead us against a social malady too obvious to be ignored. #Boholdrugabuseproblem

NMP/05 Feb 2016/7.41 a.m.