As I have said in recent meetings, people make strategy happen, and while that sounds obvious and simple, it seems to misfire in a lot of companies. An effective strategic agenda shapes the everyday thought and behavior of employees. But what stands in the way? What keeps people from engaging in the direction and expertise of company strategy? What issues of content and context pose barriers? Consider:

1. Problems with Relevance…sometimes a company’s strategy just doesn’t seem all that meaningful.
2. Problems with Structure…sometimes the strategy doesn’t mesh with organization design and systems.
3. Problems with Measures…sometimes the strategy doesn’t have a practical cause-and-effect set of signals.

Engagement is a special blend of appreciation, commitment, advocacy, motivation and accountability. It expresses energy and enthusiasm, and a certain membership in the company’s agenda for growth, performance, and change. Strategy engagement is a unique human capital process.

A recent Business Week [09/10/07] article “How to Make a Microserf Smile” reflects on the cultural and human capital challenges faced by the HR chief at Microsoft. Keeping people engaged in the company’s strategic agenda is an ongoing challenge, a dynamic challenge. It takes an approach to HR and human capital that adapts and responds to the strategic agenda. Strategy problems are people problems, as John Boustead states on the back cover of my book, Prepared and Resolved. He nails the issue, straight on. Strategy has cultural foundations and without the engagement of people at every level, the strategic agenda is blocked.

Conventional wisdom in business strategy is held together by a series of ideas that, on the surface, make a great deal of sense. Managers are expected to think through the best ways to guide their business units to greater levels of success, whatever that means.

Scott Berkun’s 2007 book, The Myths of Innovation, offers a few lessons that one might apply to the work of strategic planning, and the leadership and management efforts that surround the company’s strategic agenda.

Here is a very short translation of the myths of strategy…

1. The Myth of Choices…while some companies may have a clear and concise choice set with regard to strategy direction, most have options that play out over time. Things are unfolding rather than sequential in nature.
2. The Myth of Alignment…while most companies press for the ideal alignment between resources and strategic intent, the work of strategy integration is more like 99% perspiration than a preponderance of inspiration.
3. The Myth of Structure…while many companies have superb methods and mechanisms for strategy execution, the engines of growth and change usually happen outside the lines – in the white space of opportunities.

Making strategy happen involves more than vision statements, strategic intentions, business systems, and planning models. In fact, these broadly accepted tools and methods may undermine strategy. Efforts to simplify strategic thought and behavior may pose barriers to growth, performance, and change. That is part of the strategy paradox as defined by Michael Raynor in his 2007 book by the same title. And it’s defined in the pages of Prepared and Resolved: The Strategic Agenda for Growth, Performance, and Change. The Myths of Strategy are substitutes for serious, discerning strategic thought and behavior in companies.