James Bond: Strategic Planner Extraordinaire
One of my favorite pop culture characters is James Bond. Not only have I seen all the movies (even the dreary ones with Timothy Dalton) but I've also read all the books. Throughout the franchise, James Bond stands out because he is a quick thinker, and he is always adjusting his plan to support a new strategy.
Our hero, Mr. Bond, always goes into a situation with a plan, but he has no problem making adjustments as the situation changes. Even though this sometimes requires an excellent bluff, he always finds a way to adapt so he can have a strong position.
The only film villain that is his equal -- and maybe even his superior -- is Goldfinger, the billionaire archcriminal who loves all things gold. The great thing about Goldfinger is that when he has a plan, he executes it. The guy follows through; he doesn't dither back and forth about if he should or shouldn't do something, calling together committee meetings or doing endless focus groups. He knows what needs to be done and he does it.
For example, in the film version of "Goldfinger," our villain discovers that Bond is a British secret agent, and thus needs to be eliminated, so he promptly sets up an efficient and effective way to do this. Goldfinger has Bond strapped to a table while a laser is slowly but surely cutting right up the middle. It will eventually cut our hero in two as well. Bond, in a bit of a sweat, asks "Do you expect me to talk?" and Goldfinger replies, "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die." He then walks away and goes about his business.
This is where the bluff comes in handy. Using his quick wit and some disjointed information, Bond causes just enough reasonable doubt in Goldfinger's mind about what he may know about the big plot that Goldfinger keeps him alive. He realizes he can always kill him later, but he should reserve the resource for the time being.
Here you have a strong example of the difference between strategy and strategic planning. The plan was to kill Bond, and steps were taken to make that happen. However, new information suggested that this plan should be delayed. So, Goldfinger adapted, changing his plan from "kill him now" to "kill him later."
Everyone needs a plan to implement the strategy, but the plan is the tool to implement the strategy and shouldn't get in the way of adapting to the changing environment.
This is why I firmly believe that strategic planning and strategy are not mutually exclusive, and one is not bad while the other good. Without one, you can't implement the other. However, your plan can't be so inflexible that you can't change course as needed.
Should we have ten pound dusty tomes we call our "long-range five year strategic plan?" No, we shouldn't, and not just in "today's world" -- we never should have had a tool that gets in our way. This is the problem of following a management trend or fad v. using your brain, experience, and resources in a focused way.
One management trend that was popular in the 1990s was reading ancient Asian military texts, like "The Art of War," which was widely read in corporations. That book deals with strategy, but it also outlines how a leader needs a plan. I sum it up this way:
Don't do anything stupid; place your resources where they will do the most good; always know as much about your environment as possible; learn from your own mistakes; wait for the competition to do something stupid, then take advantage of their mistake to advance your position.
This is how James Bond lived to die another day. He didn't sit around pondering the death of strategic planning, and discussing whether strategy should take its place. Instead, he realized the two go hand in hand, and he spent his time accomplishing things.
