What we’ve been doing isn’t in line with
the company’s strategy – and we need
to fi x that. Someone in your organization
has the mandate to walk into any offi ce,
speak those words, and spark some sort
of transformation. Maybe it’s the CEO and
‘‘t S
Aar
on
Go
od
man
THE CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER
by R. Timothy S. Breene, Paul F. Nunes, and Walter E. Shill
‘‘W
84 Harvard Business Review | October 2007 | hbr.org
1580 Breene.indd 841580 Breene.indd 84 9/5/07 9:07:50 PM9/5/07 9:07:50 PM
hbr.org | October 2007 | Harvard Business Review 85
1580 Breene.indd 851580 Breene.indd 85 9/5/07 9:08:04 PM9/5/07 9:08:04 PM
The Chief Strategy Offi cer
86 Harvard Business Review | October 2007 | hbr.org
the CEO only. That’s the traditional model, after all – vision,
planning, and directives fl ow from the very top, and people
at all levels of the organization act.
But it may be that a different C-level executive bears the
burden of strategy execution in your company – a senior
leader like AIG’s Brian Schreiber. He’s been the strategy
chief under two CEOs at the insurance giant. As senior
vice president of strategic planning during Maurice “Hank”
Greenberg’s tenure, Schreiber’s focus was on implementing
investment decisions and acquiring companies selected by
the management team. Under the new CEO, Martin Sul-
livan, Schreiber’s role has expanded to include formalizing
the company’s strategic-planning processes, forging new
working relationships and synergies across the organization,
and establishing greater transparency and accountability for
those people carrying out the company’s strategy. Nowadays,
Schreiber says, the successful creation and execution of strat-
egy requires not only good processes but also the ability to
make quick decisions. So he also considers himself the point
person for assessing whether strategic initiatives, at all levels
of the organization, are in line with the company’s standards
and objectives.
Schreiber’s experience, while impressive, is not unique.
Our research and many years of experience working with
leaders in large organizations confi rm that CEOs are for-
mally handing the reins of strategy execution to individuals
known by a variety of titles but with increasing frequency as
“chief strategy offi cers.” In the past few years, the number of
CSO appointments has surged. Interviews with executive re-
cruiters point to the growing prevalence of this role in many
industries, and CSOs are already serving large multinational
companies around the world.
Companies are adding CSOs to their management teams
(or at least considering doing so) for several reasons. Start
with changes to the business landscape – complex organiza-
tional structures, rapid globalization, new regulations, the
struggle to innovate – that make it ever more diffi cult for
CEOs to be on top of everything, even an area as important
as strategy execution. Then consider the nature of strategy
itself. By nearly all accounts, strategy development has be-
come a continuous, not periodic, process. Successful execu-
tion, therefore, depends more than ever on rapid and effec-
tive decision making. Further, as Harvard Business School
professor Joseph L. Bower has noted in these pages, iron-
fi sted control of execution often eludes the top team’s grasp,
as line executives seek to defi ne strategy on their own terms.
(See Bower and Clark G. Gilbert’s “How Managers’ Everyday
Decisions Create – or Destroy – Your Company’s Strategy,”
February 2007.)
In circumstances such as these, a CEO needs an executive
near at hand to share the load and maintain – or regain –
control of a process that constantly threatens to become cha-
otic. The COO or the CFO may seem like obvious resources
to tap, but there are risks in delegating the oversight of
strategy to either. Nearly three decades ago, one executive
arguing for the creation of a new top strategy role explained
why it should not be folded into the COO’s duties. As he put
it, “a fundamental confl ict between what is easy to execute
and what is right to execute often leads the chief operating
offi cer away from the tougher decision.” (See William W.
Wommack’s “The Board’s Most Important Function,” HBR
September–October 1979.) One could easily envision similar
confl icts of interest for the CFO.
To help existing and aspiring CSOs be more effective,
and to aid CEOs who think they might need to hire or ap-
point a strategy chief, we’ve been studying these executives
as a class: Who are they? What is their mandate? What
makes them successful? Our research was complicated by
the existence of a great diversity of titles that fi t the role
of chief strategy offi cer – more than 90, in fact. We didn’t
want to get bogged down by this abundance of titles, so
we surveyed a sample of large global companies to fi nd
R. Timothy S. Breene is the chief strategy and corporate development offi cer at Accenture. Paul F. Nunes is an executive research fel-
low at Accenture’s Institute for High Performance Business. Breene and Nunes, both based in Boston, are coauthors of “Selling to the
Moneyed Masses” (HBR July–August 2004). Walter E. Shill is the global managing director of the strategy practice at Accenture. He is
based in Washington, DC.
CSOs consider themselves doers fi rst, with the mandate, credentials, and desire to act as well as advise.
1580 Breene.indd 861580 Breene.indd 86 9/5/07 9:08:11 PM9/5/07 9:08:11 PM
hbr.org | October 2007 | Harvard Business Review 87
executives who were considered –
and who considered themselves –
the chief strategy executives at
their organizations. This study
yielded a database of more than
200 senior managers who fi t the
bill. We also took a closer look at
the increasingly popular “chief
strategy offi cer” title, analyzing
the press releases and media cov-
erage of more than 100 CSO ap-
pointments to determine how
the role is evolving. We rounded
out the research with in-depth
interviews of chief strategy offi –
cers from various industries and
backgrounds.
Our initial observation was that
CSOs are, in many ways, as di-
verse as the titles they hold. They
do not emerge from predictable
backgrounds with easy-to-map
career paths or aspirations, and
their skills, experiences, best prac-
tices, and preferences run the
gamut. Yet, deeper exploration
revealed many common traits in
these individuals – characteristics
that, taken together, help defi ne
a consistent, although often un-
familiar or misunderstood, role.
Fundamentally, these are people
who wield the authority, and
have the complex range of skills,
to make strategy happen. To borrow a term from French
cinema, they act as réalisateurs.
Don’t Call Them StrategistsIt’s easy to misjudge the role of the chief strategy offi cer, in
part because the title itself is misleading. These executives
are not, for example, pure strategists, conducting long-range
planning in relative isolation. And they are not specialists
who have breathed in only the rarifi ed air of strategy over
long careers of thinking rather than doing. Rather, they are
seasoned executives with a strong strategy orientation who
have typically led major initiatives or businesses and worn
many operating hats before taking on the role.
Most of the chief strategy executives we spoke with and
studied had signifi cant experience in formulating strat-
egy, often gained at top management consulting fi rms or
through years of strategy-related work in companies – but
this was rarely the dominant portion of their careers. Indeed,
we found only one who was directly hired from a consul-
tancy. Most entered their companies in planning, functional,
or line-management capacities and were not tapped until
years later for the top strategy post. “I’m not a career strate-
gist,” says Bob Black, Kimberly-Clark’s senior vice president
and CSO. “My years in consulting taught me how to develop
and critique strategy, but the value-added probably comes
more from my business leadership experience. As a result,
I’m bringing more of a running-the-company kind of ap-
proach to the role.”
Black’s attitude and approach to his job map closely to
another of our research fi ndings: Most top strategy execu-
tives are star players more so than professional coaches. They
instruct others and serve as mentors, certainly. But most
CSOs consider themselves doers fi rst, with the mandate, cre-
dentials, and desire to act as well as advise. Most important,
they understand how to focus the organization on executing
today, not just on planning for tomorrow.
Consider the backgrounds of a few chief strategy offi cers.
Immediately before becoming Campbell Soup Company’s
1580 Breene.indd 871580 Breene.indd 87 9/5/07 9:08:16 PM9/5/07 9:08:16 PM
88 Harvard Business Review | October 2007 | hbr.org
CSO, M. Carl Johnson was the execu-
tive vice president of Kraft Foods, where
he led the former New Meals division
through a three-year transformation
that helped the unit restore its sales and
earnings momentum and signifi cantly
grow its operating income. WellPoint’s
CSO, Marjorie Dorr, was plucked from
her position as president and CEO of the
company’s northeast region, where she
had increased membership in the health
care company’s plans from 800,000 to
2.6 million. And AMD’s William T. “Billy”
Edwards had a rich set of experiences
before being named CSO in 2004, in-
cluding time as CEO of Hesson Labs, line
management roles at Motorola, posi-
tions with medical equipment start-ups,
and nearly a decade with a top strategy
consulting fi rm. (In 2005, he was named
AMD’s chief innovation offi cer.)
The CSO at times functions as a sort
of “mini CEO,” someone who must see
the issues confronting the company
from as broad a perspective as the chief
executive does, says Kimberly-Clark’s
Black, who previously served as COO of
Sammons Enterprises, a conglomerate
with $27 billion in assets, and as presi-
dent of Steelcase’s international opera-
tions. “Over the course of a week, I’m
spending time on consumer innovation,
business process outsourcing, financial
structure, international expansion, com-
munications, acquisitions – most people
in today’s functionally oriented career
paths don’t have the experience to ad-
dress so many diverse challenges at once.
They haven’t run a whole company
before.”
Some companies look outside for a
CSO, as Kimberly-Clark and Campbell’s
did, but that’s not the norm. Eighty-four
percent of the top strategy executives
who responded to our survey were in-
ternal hires; most of the rest came from
competing companies in their industries.
Our research shows that top strategy ex-
ecutives work for their companies nearly
eight years, on average, before being ap-
pointed to the role. For some, that ten-
ure is much longer: In early 2007, Wal-
greens promoted John Gleeson, a 37-year
Help Wanted: Finding a Qualifi ed CSO
Finding someone with the skills and experience needed to develop strategy, translate it for people across functions and business units, and drive organizational change is not easy. To help companies evaluate candi-dates, we’ve developed a checklist of some of the personal and behavioral traits necessary for the job, listed here in order of relative importance.
A good CSO candidate should be:
Deeply trusted by the CEO. CSOs are often given carte blanche to
tackle companywide challenges and seize new business opportunities,
so there must be a strong bond of trust between the strategy chief and
the CEO. A long professional and personal history between them isn’t
absolutely necessary – but it helps.
A master of multitasking. Our survey revealed that CSOs are respon-sible for upward of ten major business functions and activities, as diverse and demanding as M&A, competitive analysis and market research, and long-range planning. CSOs therefore must be capable of switching between environments and activities without losing speed.
A jack of all trades. Less than one-fi fth of our survey respondents spent the bulk of their careers (pre-CSO) on strategic planning. Most reported signifi cant line-management and functional experience in disparate areas, including technology management, marketing, and operations.
A star player. Most CSOs can point to impressive business results earlier in their careers. They usually view the strategy role as a launching pad, not a landing pad.
A doer, not just a thinker. CSOs split their time almost evenly between strategy development and execution, but their bias is toward the latter. “Every company already has a strategy,” says Krishnan Rajagopalan, of Heidrick & Struggles. “CEOs are looking for a leader who can help imple-ment it, not just refi ne it.”
The guardian of horizon two. Senior teams generally have a good handle on short- and long-term issues. The medium term, that period from one to four years out, can fall through the cracks, however. CSOs must be able to refocus the organization’s attention on horizon two, the critical period for strategy execution.
An infl uencer, not a dictator. Strategy chiefs don’t usually accomplish their goals by pulling rank. They sway others with their deep industry knowledge, their connections throughout the organization, and their ability to communicate effectively at all levels of the company.
Comfortable with ambiguity. All executives today must exhibit this trait, but it’s especially true for CSOs, whose actions typically won’t pay off for years. The role tends to evolve rapidly, as circumstances dictate, requiring an extraordinary ability to embrace an uncertain future.
Objective. Given their wide remit, CSOs have to be perceived as objec-tive. An openly partisan CSO, or one who lets emotions or the strength of others’ personalities cloud his or her vision, is sure to fail.
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
The Chief Strategy Offi cer
1580 Breene.indd 881580 Breene.indd 88 9/5/07 9:08:22 PM9/5/07 9:08:22 PM
hbr.org | October 2007 | Harvard Business Review 89
veteran of the company, to the company’s newly created
CSO post.
Whether they are groomed or recruited, chief strategy
executives must be able to work with and infl uence people
across entire organizations and beyond; that’s the heart of
the job. The broad mix of skills and experience required
of a CSO is rare, which makes those who possess this com-
bination highly valued. These individuals are rarely aban-
doned by top executives who recognize their worth. Many
CSOs therefore have long-standing relationships with their
CEOs. The strategy chiefs we surveyed said they had known
the CEO at their companies for fi ve years, on average, be-
fore becoming the CSO. One strategy chief we spoke with
said he and the CEO of his company had worked together
at three different businesses over a seven-year period be-
fore they both ended up at a health care management fi rm.
After the CEO’s six-month search for a strategy chief proved
fruitless, he turned to his longtime colleague. “It’s a huge
job,” the CEO told the manager, “but you’ll have more im-
pact doing this than you would leading a division – and
you’re the person I’d feel most comfortable with.” His col-
league accepted.
When a Plan Comes TogetherThe chief strategy executive position, then, is “a huge job”
that should be fi lled only by highly accomplished business
veterans. But one shouldn’t take the capaciousness of the
role to mean anything goes – just slot someone in and let her
fi gure it out. Our investigation revealed that strategy execu-
tives are charged with three critical tasks that together form
the very defi nition of strategy execution.
CSOs must engender commitment to clear strategic plans. The CEO and the leadership team create the company’s strategic vision and set its course. But in large companies,
that vision may be opaque to many, which can create resis-
tance or confusion among senior managers and frontline
employees and can thwart execution and change. “No strat-
egy can just be handed down to an organization,” says Kirk
Klasson, former vice president of strategy for Novell. “With-
out achieving real understanding and agreement, there will
be lots of grinning and backslapping over the strategy but
zero change when people get back to their offi ces.”
CSOs must therefore resolve the strategy – that is, clarify
it for themselves and for every business unit and function,
ensuring that all employees understand the details of the
strategic plan and how their work connects to corporate
goals. It’s often easier for an insider to resolve this vision for
colleagues. Indeed, a CSO’s long experience within a single
company – specifi cally, his or her deep knowledge of the
chief architects of the existing strategy and its history – can
be crucial for building the federation necessary to enact
change.
Yet there are times when an outsider is called for, particu-
larly when a fresh strategic perspective is required. Because
he was coming from outside the organization, Kimberly-
Clark’s Black told CEO Thomas Falk he wanted to take 60
days to get to know the company better before he signed
off on strategic objectives that had been developed before
he arrived. By the time the two months were up, Black and
Falk had together created an updated list of goals, informed
by Black’s newly acquired understanding of the company’s
operations and aspirations plus his rich store of leadership
and strategy experience.
It’s true that CSOs can’t effectively resolve a strategy with-
out having had a hand in its creation, but these executives
quickly get beyond creation to action. “All our divisions have
strategic plans, and I’m part of making them happen,” says
Janet Matricciani, the head of strategic planning and chief
strategy offi cer at Countrywide Bank. “When we’re start-
ing a new business, I’ll help create the business plan, fi nd
the right people, do whatever it takes to make the business
happen.”
CSOs must drive immediate change. Clarifying the cor-porate vision for others can sound like a relatively leisurely
activity, involving meandering chats in offi ces and confer-
ence rooms across the enterprise. The reality is far more
urgent, however: One-third of our survey respondents went
so far as to describe their companies as “under siege.” Most
characterized their industries as highly volatile. These are
the circumstances that prompt companies to seek out CSOs
in the fi rst place, and they are partly why CSOs are drawn to
the role. As a result, the primary focus of the job almost al-
ways quickly evolves from creating shared alignment around
a vision to riding herd on the ensuing change effort.
Clarifying the corporate vision can sound like a leisurely activity, but the reality is far more urgent. One-third of CSOs surveyed described their companies as “under siege.”
1580 Breene.indd 891580 Breene.indd 89 9/5/07 9:08:28 PM9/5/07 9:08:28 PM
The Chief Strategy Offi cer
90 Harvard Business Review | October 2007 | hbr.org
Of course, different companies have different strategic
imperatives that infl uence the nature of the CSO role and
the type of executive best suited to the task. One health care
company we studied was rebounding from bankruptcy in
2005, so its strategic emphasis was on fast growth. Recogniz-
ing a need for high-level help, the CEO initially sought a
“chief growth offi cer.” The person chosen for the role, an in-
ternal business leader with whom the CEO had a long work-
ing relationship, realized that in order to grow, the company
needed to rebuild its sales pipeline, explore different product
lines, and reposition its brand. That meant the heads of Sales,
Marketing, M&A, and Strategy Development would have to
report to the CGO. Within months of taking on the role, the
CGO became the CSO and analyzed the underlying causes
of the company’s stalled growth, identifi ed attractive new
markets, and developed aggressive acquisition strategies. In
short order, the health care fi rm began to enter the new
markets, and people who had been hesitant to do business
with the fi nancially ailing organization gained confi dence in
it. By the end of 2006, the company had achieved dramatic
growth and acquired several critical new businesses.
At other companies, innovation is at the core of the
change effort. When Douglas Conant, the CEO of Campbell
Soup, hired CSO M. Carl Johnson in 2001, he cited Johnson’s
track record of revitalizing big brands, launching new ones,
and improving fi nancial results at Kraft Foods. Conant was
confi dent the new CSO would help do the same for the soup
company. By 2005, according to an article in Advertising Age,
the “low-key, thoughtful, and almost professorial” Johnson
had helped propel a turnaround at Campbell’s by pushing
for innovations in products, packaging, and shelving and by
supporting it all with investments in marketing. Johnson had
broadened Campbell’s competitive positioning in the mar-
ket – from “soup against soup” to “soup as a meal” – thereby
greatly expanding the range of the company’s offerings.
CSOs must drive decision making that sustains or-ganizational change. A strategy that is clear one day can become fuzzy the next as people and competitive environ-
ments change. Alignment can bend and then break if it is not
continually reinforced. Chief strategy executives, therefore,
must ensure that the members of the leadership team come
to agreement on strategy decisions. Just as important, the
CSO must make certain that those decisions aren’t watered
down or ignored as they are translated throughout the orga-
nization. He or she must be that person who, in the CEO’s
stead, can walk into anyone’s offi ce and test whether the
decisions being made are aligned with the strategy and are
creating the desired results.
“Someone at the center has to bring focus and discipline
to the decision process,” says Kimberly-Clark’s CFO, Mark
Buthman, or strategic discussions and initiatives will stall
and business opportunities may be lost. The strategy chief,
he explains, is often the one person in the room who is in the
best position to “put the moose on the table” – to challenge
thinking and discuss the subjects no one else wants to touch
so that these issues no longer serve as barriers to agreement
and action. Indeed, many of the CSOs we interviewed said
that both candor and tact were critical for doing their jobs
well. The strategy chief at a software company, for instance,
recalled having to help members of the senior management
team realize that their lack of international experience was
preventing the company from carrying out its plans to ex-
pand overseas quickly and decisively.
CSOs can also help steer the top team away from group-
think and from focusing too much on past practices and
accomplishments – problems that can affl ict executives who
have worked together for a long while. For instance, the top
management team of one company held a consensus view
that IT was an “overhead activity” until its CSO helped it
adopt a new perspective: technology as a partner in and en-
abler of strategy. The members of the senior team had been
looking at the issue, in the words of one executive, through
a “heritage lens.” Their shared history in the company was
clouding their perspective on the need for change.
To make sure decisions align with strategy through all
levels of the organization, top strategy executives must be
comfortable working at 50,000 feet, 500 feet, 50 feet, and on
down. They must be able “to tell [the strategy story] in a way
people can understand and buy in to,” says Countrywide’s
Janet Matricciani. The senior team might need a big-picture
view of the strategy, whereas those people actually executing
the plan on the ground might need a more pragmatic view.
Half the job involves learning why decisions aren’t being made in accordance with strategy and quickly determining whether to stay the course.
1580 Breene.indd 901580 Breene.indd 90 9/5/07 9:08:37 PM9/5/07 9:08:37 PM
hbr.org | October 2007 | Harvard Business Review 91
Strategy chiefs must therefore be practical and
analytical as well as visionary, Matricciani notes.
This isn’t to say that CSOs just refl exively push
strategic initiatives downward. Half the job in-
volves learning why decisions below the execu-
tive suite aren’t being made in accordance with
strategy and quickly determining whether to stay
the course or change tack – so CSOs must be good
listeners as well as good translators. In fact, nearly
every CSO in our survey said strategy develop-
ment and execution in their companies is half
deliberate and half emergent. Direct interaction
with and feedback from the troops is essential
for CSOs to keep their companies agile and their
strategies fl exible.
What It TakesThere’s no simple, step-by-step recipe for success
in the role of chief strategy offi cer – but there are
a few essential ingredients. To follow through on
their mandate, successful strategy executives em-
ploy a handful of high-level principles.
Mind the time horizons. All executives split their time to varying degrees across three strategy
horizons – usefully defi ned in Mehrdad Baghai,
Stephen Coley, and David White’s The Alchemy of
Growth to mean extending and defending the core
business in the short term (horizon one), building
emerging businesses in the medium term (hori-
zon two), and creating viable options for the long
term (horizon three). But CSOs particularly keep
their eyes trained on horizon two and work to
present a seamless picture of all the horizons. Ac-
cording to our research, they spend an estimated
39% of their time on horizon two, while 36% of
their time is devoted to horizon three, and 25%
is spent monitoring horizon one. Others in the
top team divide their time differently, spending
more time on both the short term and the long
term and less on the medium term. So the CSO’s
attention to this period underlines the unique
perspective this individual brings to the organi-
zation. “It’s crucial for me to ask, ‘What implicit
decisions have we made that need to be explicit?
Or what decisions have we not made that we need
to make, because we’re heading down a path and
it’s going to be hard to reverse course?’” explains
Kimberly-Clark’s Black. The CSO has to be, in ef-
fect, the guardian of that space one to three years
out, when the decisions made (or not made) today
will show consequences.
Balance strategy formulation and execution. Most of the top strategy executives we polled said
The CEO’s Burden
T he CEO is ultimately responsible for the vision and strategy of the corporation – so why hire a CSO? There are good reasons for CEOs to delegate strategy responsibilities to another in the C-suite.
CEOs are being weighed down by the ever-growing complex-ity of doing business in a global economy. The demands and intricacies of conducting business in multiple cultures, time zones, and political or regulatory environments are exacting a stiff toll on globe-trotting CEOs. (Even CEOs need to sleep.) And keeping on top of the challenges at a range of interconnected businesses can tax even the most focused and energetic chief executives. At tech fi rms, for example, senior leaders must be knowledge-able about every content business – music, movies, books, video, television – as well as the software and hardware needed to make them all work. Networks of companies are a great boon to indus-try, as alliances, partnerships, and close supplier relationships facilitate the fl ow of commerce. But they’re another management challenge for stressed-out executives, as big companies enter into literally thousands of relationships spanning the globe. Greater complexity on all fronts may explain why, according to one study, top management spends less than three hours a month, on aver-age, discussing strategy issues (including mergers and acquisi-tions) or making strategic decisions.
Also consider that stakeholder demands from all quarters are putting pressure on CEOs to deliver results rapidly – and deliver them in line with factors that are only tangentially related to the making and marketing of products or services. It’s hard to see a fi ve-year plan through to completion when your tenure is likely to be less than that, but that’s the situation CEOs fi nd themselves in today. Boards, under intense pressure to add value themselves, are frequently pulling the plug on CEOs they deem ineffective. In 1980, the average time at the top was seven to nine years; today it is four to fi ve years. Public scrutiny of compensation packages is only ratcheting up pressure on both boards and CEOs to deliver results in a hurry. For underperforming management teams, private-equity funds are often lurking, ready to make a hostile bid. Boards are also increasing their involvement in strategy develop-ment; several have guided their CEOs toward delegating strategy execution to another C-suite executive.
And fi nally, CEOs these days must be prepared to respond to an array of voices: shareholder advocates, the fi nancial community (Wall Street analysts, private-equity deal makers, hedge-fund managers), government regulators, legislators, attorneys general, NGOs, environmental activists – and that’s just people outside the company. While this list is by no means exhaustive (although it is exhausting), it helps explain why more and more CEOs are seek-ing help with strategy execution at the highest levels.
1580 Breene.indd 911580 Breene.indd 91 9/5/07 9:08:45 PM9/5/07 9:08:45 PM
The Chief Strategy Offi cer
92 Harvard Business Review | October 2007 | hbr.org
they split their time almost evenly between strategy formu-
lation and execution, yet their statements reveal a tilt toward
the latter. “Money is made executing, not strategizing,” re-
ported one chief technology offi cer, who is also responsible
for strategy at his professional services fi rm. An aviation
company executive emphasized the point: “We can have the
best plan in the world, but if we can’t execute, we won’t be
able to pay the bills.” Driving change and enforcing the con-
sistent application of decisions may require taking things as
far as Kimberly-Clark’s Black would go: shrinking strategic
planning to a small internal team and leveraging the exper-
tise of outside consultants. Our survey indicates that this is
a common attitude among CSOs: 47% say they use external
consultants extensively in their formulation of strategy.
Exert infl uence appropriately. CSOs must be adept at ex-erting their infl uence on other executives who might be
skeptical – 52% of the strategy executives in our survey said
having this skill was critical for achieving their goals. Coun-
trywide’s Matricciani told us that thorough due diligence
on new products and potential partnerships helps her to
be persuasive when presenting opportunities to the rest of
the company (or when explaining why it should stick to its
knitting).
Of course, simply having the CSO title can help: About one-
fourth of our respondents said they accomplish their goals
through direct authority. And while a tiny fraction reported
that they infl uence others through refl ected authority – that
is, by having the implicit or explicit support of the CEO – we
know that the CSO’s relationship to the chief executive is
more critical than that fi gure indicates. “The role is so pecu-
liar, if you’re not working every angle, I’m not sure how you
get anything done,” explains Stephen Dull, vice president of
strategy at VF Corporation. “I report to the CEO, and I some-
times represent his issues and concerns more directly when
I need to. You’ve got to use every arrow in your quiver – and
you have to be prepared to do so again and again.”
Develop IT and HR smarts. The CEO’s vote of confi dence and a strong résumé confer the credibility that gets you
a fair hearing as a top strategy executive. But even more
important for swaying opinions and conveying authority
is having deep knowledge in two functional areas that are
central to execution these days: technology and human
capital. More than half the CSOs in our survey said they are
spending more and more time looking at issues within these
domains, which aren’t traditional strengths of strategists.
Nearly one-third of the CSOs we polled reported “very high
confi dence” in their knowledge of and comfort working in
these functional areas; nearly all said they are at least “com-
fortable” with their level of knowledge of these topics. “Half
the time I spend with the CEO, [we’re talking about] people
and cultural issues,” one strategy chief told us. And while in
many ways IT is the bailiwick of the CIO or CTO, it’s also a
critical domain for CSOs, because technology is critical to
virtually every aspect of strategy – for instance, creating new
products and services, developing new business models, and
improving processes.
Do You Really Need a CSO?The strategy management challenge has become more and
more complicated, in virtually every industry, over the past
decade. Increased volatility, rapid globalization, the rise of
new technologies, industry convergence, and changes in
the workforce – all have contributed to an environment in
which top-down planning needs to be balanced with quick
and agile execution. That is why more and more companies –
including Motorola, Marsh & McLennan, NationsHealth,
Universal Pictures, and Yahoo, along with the other organi-
zations we’ve discussed in this article – have found it neces-
sary to hire CSOs.
But recent CSO appointments aren’t necessarily just a
reaction to today’s complex times. There are clear short-,
medium-, and long-term benefi ts for companies that name
strategy chiefs – advantages that justify the added expense
and complexity at the top of the organization.
From day one, the CSO, by being the go-to person on all
strategy matters, can focus and speed up decision making.
AIG’s Brian Schreiber wanted to be the “fi rst call people
made every time they had a new [strategic] opportunity.”
That way, he could quickly get the right people involved in
making a decision – calling on members of the senior team,
for instance, or experts in functional areas like treasury and
risk management. He could also ensure that the decision
was based on a strong strategic rationale as well as a fi nancial
one. Schreiber and other CSOs don’t just wait for the phone
CSOs don’t just wait for the phone to ring. They preemptively take the lead on strategic questions that business-unit heads don’t have the time to deal with.
1580 Breene.indd 921580 Breene.indd 92 9/5/07 9:08:53 PM9/5/07 9:08:53 PM
hbr.org | October 2007 | Harvard Business Review 93
to ring, however: They preemptively take the lead on stra-
tegic questions that overwhelmed business-unit heads just
don’t have time to deal with.
In the medium term, CSOs add value by building world-
class strategy development and execution capabilities within
the company. Many strategy chiefs are creating departments
specifi cally for this purpose, hiring people with strong strat-
egy-related skills and competencies (business development,
competitive analysis, M&A expertise, and the like). CSOs
also ensure that the capabilities they help to develop are
implemented by managers and integrated throughout the
organization. Indeed, chemical company H.B. Fuller recently
announced it was hiring its fi rst-ever CSO specifi cally “to
emphasize and align the key functions of strategy planning,
business development, process improvement, and informa-
tion technology.” And when Marjorie Dorr was named Well-
Point’s CSO, the company’s CEO said in a press release that
Dorr would be “working with and across all business units
to [establish] specifi c plans, deliverables, and measurable
objectives…in order to drive progress and achieve desired
results.”
In the long term, the role of top strategy executive can
become an effective succession-planning tool. At Cadbury
Schweppes, Todd Stitzer went from being CEO of Dr Pepper/
7 Up to becoming chief strategy offi cer to becoming deputy
CEO of the entire company to fi nally being appointed CEO –
all between 1997 and 2003. And PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi
was in charge of corporate strategy at both ABB and Mo-
torola before being named Pepsi’s senior vice president of
corporate strategy and development in 1994; from that role,
she moved to president and CFO in 2001 and then to CEO in
2006. As Heidrick & Struggles’s managing partner Krishnan
Rajagopalan told us: “People take on the chief strategy role
because they want to run the business sooner or later. There
are usually one or two steps, however, between taking over
the CSO role and becoming the CEO.”
While the potential benefi ts are clear, bringing on a CSO
is not without its challenges. One C-suite executive we spoke
with was so glad to have a CSO come on board at his fi rm
that he voluntarily gave up his offi ce near the CEO to the
strategy chief – but not all executives will be as receptive
to the change. The CEO may need to do a hefty amount of
evangelizing and relationship management to get the top
team to buy in to this restructuring of the org chart. And
executive recruiters confi rmed what our interviews revealed:
The search for the right candidate, whether internal or ex-
ternal, takes longer than most CEOs expect – a fact that is
particularly frustrating for those chief executives looking to
implement a growth or innovation agenda quickly.
Despite such challenges, more and more companies are
exploring the CSO option. CEOs are tapping longtime com-
pany veterans with the experience and the social and po-
litical capital to cross boundaries quickly and effectively, or
they’re bringing outsiders and their fresh growth perspec-
tives into the C-suite. Either way, CEOs are recognizing the
ever-changing nature of strategy development and execu-
tion, the ever-compressed time frames they have in which
to achieve results – and the ever-growing value of having a
trusted, in-house strategy executive at the ready.
Reprint R0710D
To order, see page 167.
Bill
Bre
we
r
“The problem being, Muffi t, if I give you a larger cubicle, I have to give everybody a larger cubicle.”
1580 Breene.indd 931580 Breene.indd 93 9/5/07 9:09:00 PM9/5/07 9:09:00 PM
Testimonials
