The overuse and misuse of ‘strategic’

THE term “strategic” has become a buzzword, heavily used in business and government, often to the point of overuse and misuse. In the Philippines, many organizations and institutions emphasize the word without fully understanding or properly applying its true meaning. While strategic implies a long-term, high-level approach to achieving goals, its indiscriminate use can dilute its significance, leading to confusion and inefficiency.

The concept of strategy originated in military contexts, which referred to the art of planning and directing large-scale military operations to achieve long-term objectives. Over time, the term has been adopted in business and government to signify deliberate, high-level decisions made to steer organizations toward specific, overarching goals. In this context, “strategic” actions are those that align with an organization’s mission, vision and long-term objectives, focusing on sustainable success rather than immediate, short-term gains.

In the Philippines, businesses and government agencies frequently label initiatives, plans or even routine activities as “strategic,” whether or not they meet the criteria for true, strategic actions. One example is the crafting of business plans and government programs. It’s common to see “strategic” applied to initiatives that are, in reality, tactical or operational in nature. Organizations use it to make routine decisions appear more important, or to give an air of importance to short-term plans that lack a long-term vision.

Misleading

For instance, to label a company’s marketing plan as a “strategic marketing initiative,” when it merely focuses on increasing sales in the next quarter, can be misleading. A truly strategic marketing plan would be designed to build the company’s brand, reputation and customer base sustainably over several years.

In government, the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) serves as an example of a document that should reflect a true strategic approach to national development. Ideally, the PDP should outline long-term priorities and policies that will guide the country’s progress over a significant period.

However, the frequent use of the term “strategic” in many sub-plans and sectoral programs often obscures whether these programs are genuinely aligned with long-term national goals, or merely address short-term political interests. This misuse can create an illusion of careful planning when the reality is more fragmented and reactive.

A particularly glaring instance of the misuse of “strategic” in the public sector involves local government programs aimed at addressing immediate social problems. For example, some local government units in the Philippines have implemented “strategic” poverty alleviation programs that are, in practice, merely providing temporary relief through cash assistance or short-term employment projects.

While such programs may offer immediate support to those in need, these fall short of being genuinely strategic because they lack sustainable solutions to poverty, such as education reform, job creation or infrastructure development. A truly strategic approach would involve long-term investments in building human capital and creating an environment conducive to economic growth, rather than simply addressing the symptoms of poverty.

Another common misuse of “strategic” is seen in the corporate world, particularly in human resources and corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs. Many organizations in the Philippines promote their CSR activities as “strategic” because they contribute to their public image.

However, these initiatives are often disconnected from the company’s core business objectives and do not contribute to long-term value creation. In contrast, a genuinely strategic CSR initiative would be one that is integrated with the company’s business model, such as investing in sustainable practices that not only enhance the company’s reputation but also reduce operational costs and environmental impact over the long term.

Similarly, the overuse of the term “strategic” in human resource management often leads to confusion about what truly constitutes strategic HR practices. Many companies in the Philippines have created “strategic” HR plans that focus on short-term goals like improving employee retention or enhancing workplace culture. While these goals are important, they are more operational than strategic in nature.

A strategic HR plan would involve aligning workforce development with the company’s long-term business objectives, such as preparing employees for future leadership roles or investing in training that supports the organization’s long-term growth plans.

To avoid the overuse and misuse of “strategic,” it is essential to return to the original definition of the word. Strategic actions are deliberate, forward-looking and designed to create sustainable value. They require careful analysis, planning and alignment with broader organizational or national objectives.

For example, in the Philippines, a genuinely strategic government initiative would be one that focuses on long-term structural reforms, such as improving the quality of education or enhancing public infrastructure to support economic growth. These initiatives require significant investment and political will but have the potential to transform the country’s development trajectory over time.

Similarly, in the private sector, a strategic business decision might involve investing in research and development to create new products that will meet future market demands, rather than focusing solely on increasing short-term profits.

In conclusion, while the term “strategic” is valuable when used correctly, its overuse and misuse in business and government in the Philippines have diminished its meaning.

It is important to distinguish between actions that are genuinely strategic — those that are designed to achieve long-term objectives — and those that are merely operational or tactical.

The author is the founder and CEO of Hungry Workhorse, a digital, culture and customer experience transformation consulting firm. He is a fellow at the US-based Institute for Digital Transformation. He is the chairman of the Digital Transformation IT Governance Committee of Finex Academy. He teaches strategic management and digital transformation in the MBA Program of De La Salle University. His views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of Finex. Email: [email protected].