Eric Partaker Argues for Deeper Clarity in Business Planning Beyond ‘Strategy’

In a recent LinkedIn post, Eric Partaker tackles the common overuse and ambiguity surrounding the term “strategy” in business. He argues that when “strategy” becomes a catch-all phrase encompassing goals, vision, tactics, planning, and execution, it hinders precise implementation and leads to chaos.

Partaker highlights the critical need to differentiate between distinct layers of planning to achieve clarity and enable scalable growth. He states:

“Strategy” is doing too much heavy lifting. It’s become a catch-all phrase for: Goals, Vision, Tactics, Planning, Execution. That’s a problem. Because when everything is strategy, nothing gets executed with precision.

Deconstructing the Planning Layers

The core of Partaker’s argument rests on separating planning into three distinct levels, each with its own purpose and focus. He outlines these as:

• Strategic Planning: This layer, according to Partaker, is about setting the long-term direction, defining a company’s competitive stance, and making crucial decisions about what initiatives to pursue and, importantly, what to reject.
• Tactical Planning: Partaker describes this as the bridge between strategy and execution. It involves translating the overarching strategy into focused initiatives and aligning teams around key milestones.
• Operational Planning: This level, as explained by Partaker, is concerned with the day-to-day execution. It’s about converting strategic objectives into concrete actions, establishing habits, and ensuring consistent output while keeping teams synchronized.

The Perils of Blended Planning

Partaker criticizes the prevalent practice of consolidating these three distinct planning functions into a single, often bloated, “strategy document.” He posits that this approach leads to several detrimental outcomes:

• Teams lack a clear understanding of priorities.
• Projects may run concurrently but fail to align with overarching goals.
• Daily tasks become disconnected from the broader organizational objectives.

To illustrate the negative consequences of this conflation, Partaker writes:

Most companies blend all 3 into 1 bloated “strategy doc.” The result? – Teams are unclear on priorities – Projects run in parallel but not in alignment – Daily tasks don’t ladder up to big goals.

Achieving Clarity and Scale

Conversely, Partaker argues that by disentangling these planning layers, businesses can unlock significant improvements. He asserts that this separation transforms strategy from a theoretical concept into an actionable framework, imbues tactical plans with practical relevance, and enables operations to deliver tangible results.

According to Partaker, this structured approach is the hallmark of high-performing companies:

Strategy sets the destination. Tactics chart the course. Operations drive the car. Alignment lives here.

He concludes by emphasizing that leadership teams require more than just additional tasks; they need explicit clarity on the level at which they are operating and the significance of their role within that framework. Partaker suggests that implementing this layered planning approach is key to faster decision-making, tighter focus, and ultimately, superior execution.