What is the difference between a strategy and a winning strategy?
Someone can say that “now we have a strategy because we have documented something” – this is not really true. There are many ways to document a strategy, present a strategy document, and bang braces, but that is not the point of the strategy. The point is whether the whole team has internalized the thoughts on the basic issues and how bright they are in everyone’s minds.
In addition to this, it must be considered whether the strategy can be a winning one. Thoughts can be bright but you can still lose all the time. In that case, the question is whether we use strategic methods in way that we start winning. For example, in theory a sports team knows how to win: a lot of goals are scored and a lot goals are blocked in our end – this is not a difficult strategic line. The situation changes when faced with an insanely tough team and then the tactical side comes along.
A winning strategy is one that constantly asks genuine, real questions and thinks about how we can become better than others. It is always necessary to return to the basic questions from time to time and do corrective movements. A mere strategy is a piece of paper with documented answers to these questions. Of course, the alternative is that there is no strategy at all and even then you can win with luck. But if you want to win time after time and permanently, a good strategy will help because it clarifies things.
So in a nutshell:
1. Winning without a strategy is a hustle that can accidentally bring victory. When asked afterwards it is not really known why the victory was achieved and if the same should be re-created it is not known how.
2. You have a strategy, but you never win, telling you that you are just a theorist. In theory, you know better how things should be done, but you end up not doing things that you know are right.
3. A winning strategy is to use strategic thinking all the time, to improve and to win.