We frequently see companies adopt one or more of a range of strategic “principles” that guide much of what they do. “Principles” such as Focus, Differentiation, Time is of the Essence, Concentration of Forces, Building on Strengths, Matching Aims with Resources, Limiting Risk, Shareholders wanting Earnings, Customer Service, Best Practice, Sustained Competitive Advantage, Total Quality Management, and the list goes on and on. The use of these “principles” are not however, applicable in every instance or in every context despite what many popular authors who promote their own “hobby horse” would like us to believe.

Each of these “principles” are only enablers that assist a corporation to achieve a specific outcome defined by its owners’ objectives. The choice of an enabler should only be assessed against its ability to enhance those objectives, and not because it is used by other companies (competitors or not) or because it is the “flavour of the moment”.

Each of these “principles” have serious implications and impacts on core objectives, and wrongly chosen, will impede an organisation’s ability to satisfy them. The following are examples of legitimate alternatives to some commonly used strategic “principles”. Each is appropriate in its own context and inappropriate out of that context.

Focus versus diversification

Differentiation versus a “me-too” strategy

Time is of the essence versus at the right time

Concentrate your forces versus spread your risk

Build on your strengths versus build the strengths needed to fulfil your aims

Match aims with resources versus create the resources to satisfy aims

Limit risk versus accept higher risk for higher reward

Create “unite’ de doctrine’ versus internal competition and intrapreneurship

Shareholders want earnings versus asset growth and security

Quality organisation versus give the market what it wants

Best Practice versus be as good as you need to be, to satisfy aims

Sustained competitive advantage versus commercial opportunism

Choosing the appropriate strategy is always dependent on the context and what it is that the strategy is required to accomplish. The accomplishment in turn is always dependent on the corporate objectives that are themselves dependent on owner objectives. In assessing strategies therefore, one must necessarily assess the contribution that the strategy makes toward the organisation’s fundamental objectives.