One of the biggest challenges I see in the US is that too many seem to think that "Strategy" is a matter of position, education, rank or duty assignment.
Also, in the US, to reinforce this falacy, when one gets to their Senior Service College, they get the "now that you are at this level, we will teach you strategy and send you out the door as a strategist" pitch, which I personnally found a bit (disturgingly) amusing. Both in that we think someone has to be a Colonel to have this talent; and also in that we think all Colonels can somehow be taught it.
Like so many things in life, strategic thinking is a talent that is not very common, and that must be devleoped and nurtured from an early age. If you never had the talent to begin with, you will never be much of a strategist regardless of your Ph.D., or the fact that you are a War College grad assigned to a Strategy shop on the Joint Staff.
I think we also over codify the term "Strategy." Certainly it is a word that means many things to many people. We need professional terms of art, but I'm not sure we have this quite right yet. As John points out, there are those few who emerge from the pact that had a combination of vision, position and skill to move a concept forward.
Not sure if CvC falls into that pack, as most of his impact was through how others took his ideas and applied them to their work after he was dead. (this final sentence added solely for the entertainment value of poking the CvC disciples!) :-)
Bookmarks