It probably wasn’t until I spent time in Malindi, Kenya, that I got a visceral sense of what it meant to be in the minority. My skin was far lighter, my hair was different and my clothes seemed out of place. I was a “mzungu” (white person). The people were quite kind yet I knew that most of the social adaptations would have to come from me. For a relatively brief time I felt what minorities must feel all the time when they live permanently with people different from themselves.

What does skin color and social background have to do with strategic or tactical thinking?

Only the recognition that the world is dominated by tactical thinking and a strategist will always be in the minority. “Minority thinking” means that most of the time the strategists must adapt to the tacticians rather than the inverse. It does not mean however that strategists are less valuable or needed. And it does not mean that strategy is unimportant. But a strategist that only masters strategic thinking without understanding how to act tactically will most likely fail (or at best succeed sporadically).

The critical implication is that a strategist has a particular requirement to speak two languages. First, there is the native language of strategy. Second, there is the foreign language of the majority that is primarily tactical.

Say something strategic to most tactical people and it would be like a Kenyan saying something in Swahili to me. Aside from “hakuna matata” (no worries) and a few other phrases, I would be lost. Similarly, when strategy encounters a tactical mindset, the strategist faces the likely outcome that they will be misunderstood unless they follow some simple rules.

Here are 5 powerful rules that can help guide a strategist’s behavior and translate their message.

One of the things that intrigues me about competitive intelligence is the types of relationships that are required to be successful. Intuitively I think and empirically I know that people matter most. We get assignments from them, ask them to tell us their fears and deliver implicit commentary on their performance even as we report on the competitive environment.

I get it that they need specific information about competitors. I also know that clients or managers want to increase their confidence in their decision making. And, commonly they want to feel that they won’t be blindsided. Most of all they want help to make wise choices about the future that will reflect well on their leadership.

So what role should I play? Information source? Critic? Counselor? Oracle? Or, maybe, friend?

I can hear you through the computer right now (disagreement and skepticism transmit well). Yes, you think that the first 3 or 4 possibilities often fit. But, definitely not the “friend” role. That is entirely too soft a description that no client or senior manager would provide in a job description. They want bottom line results and value those that directly (directly!) contribute. Tangible, measurable and preferably quick results would be their highest goal.

Yet, I wonder about that. Not understating the need for results and concrete benefits, I think that we sometimes miss the human element of leadership and what it needs most.

Many times leaders are trying desperately to keep ahead of the game. There are rivalries within the company which are threatening their position. The people that work with them are constantly angling for attention and favor. Competitors, of course, would be gleeful if they failed. The Board is constantly evaluating their performance and it is easy to understand that most won’t advance. It’s a jungle and thriving within that jungle is tough. One needs help but where will it come from?

There is not one answer to that question.

“Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.” – American Marketing Association definition of Marketing

If you are an Apple fan, do you really care about their product development processes, the processors in their iPhone, the Unix roots of the Mac OS or the contractual arrangements between Apple and music industry players? Are things like their software testing techniques, documentation standards or even their clever advertising campaigns important? I doubt it.

If you are like me then you are more enamored with elegant products that bring you pleasure or utility in ways that are simple to grasp and use.

The benefits of using Apple products are always front and center. For instance, I can easily answer why using the AppStore for iPhone applications works for me. It solves a problem (avoiding complexity) while delivering value (thousands of free or inexpensive applications). Meanwhile the iPhone itself delivers on the promise of the mobile internet. Shockingly since so many other companies were trying to do the same thing for years, Apple got it right first. Well, maybe it is not so shocking. After all, Apple makes a habit of entering a market late but, and this is a big “but”, with superior understanding of the product and service characteristics which are prized by consumers.

For most of its history, Apple has mastered understanding consumers, translating their needs into hardware/software/service requirements and delivering a whole, satisfying experience. This is a marketing rather than a technology mindset.

This is exactly where (with exceptions, of course) that the Competitive Intelligence community fails to deliver.

We started this journey a couple of months ago. The goal has been to describe how to develop and deploy a new competitive intelligence function for your company. You might recall how the early articles tiptoed around the issues and people sensitivities to the new function. Later, I was more specific about tasks such as budgets, branding and assertively expanding the function. Boldness became the order of the day.

We talked about how many people will not understand what you are trying to accomplish. Some that do understand what you are attempting will be nervous and suspicious about your aims. Are you trying to supplant their role? Is your goal to implicitly criticize their performance? Why should they help you with their special knowledge? And, what is it about competitive intelligence that will help them?

All along the way we have discussed practical tips for the development and deployment. More than that, I have tried to illuminate people issues that are important with the thesis that these issues are the most intractable if not dealt with properly. All of the other issues of analysis techniques, infrastructure design, acquisition of tools and budget are simpler (though not trivial) issues if the people ones are aligned well.

And now we come to the final step.

The final step is to spread the word about competitive intelligence.