What Can Tip the Scales?

There are two types of decisions that must be made within any organization:

1. Strategic decisions made by top management, and

2. Decisions made in alignment with those strategic decisions.

The role of top management is to ensure the second type is implemented properly. That’s what strategic management is—putting strategic goals into action.— Peter Drucker

According to Drucker’s theory, there are eight key areas where a business must set goals: market position, innovation, productivity, financial and material resources, profitability, management development, employee relations, and social responsibility. These areas align directly with the challenges faced by many Russian enterprises. Logically, one would expect these companies to initiate comprehensive, long-term planning across all these domains. And yet, we return to the essential question: What is the deciding factor that will shift leadership in favor of strategic planning?

As early as the 1950s, Peter Drucker perceptively anticipated the mindset of modern professionals. He noted that while the first five goals are rarely questioned, there is often resistance to including intangible assets, such as management development, employee relations, and especially social responsibility.

Following Drucker’s logic, I would argue that we are now witnessing what he foresaw: many Russian companies still undervalue the significance of “soft” factors. Yet it is precisely these factors that have the power to tip the scale in favor of strategic planning—and, ultimately, business success.

The first step is to clarify: What kind of planning process are we talking about? Regardless of the specific tools or models used, there is a crucial aspect of SP that is often not just ignored—it’s completely absent from the organizational vocabulary (in fact, 35% of Russian companies have reportedly never used the term “corporate culture”). That critical element is employee participation and engagement, a fundamental component of any successful enterprise.

Naturally, this raises a fair question: Is it truly necessary to involve so many people (in large organizations, this could mean thousands) in what are typically “management-level” decisions? Couldn’t we limit it to a core team of managers?

In my view, the answer lies in two principles:

1. Employees are internal clients, and like any clients, they have needs and expectations that must be understood and addressed.

2. Employees are the primary resource through which organizational goals are achieved. At a minimum, they must understand and buy into the goals they are expected to deliver on.

Achieving these outcomes requires intentional development of the company’s human capital through both professional training and behavioral development. So, what influences the “quality” of human resources the most?

Back in 1923, American psychologist and economist Chris Argyris emphasized that individual behavior, organizational structure, and informal systems are interdependent. When there is a mismatch between personal needs and organizational goals, the result is conflict, failure, and frustration. In organizations that restrict autonomy and fail to address employees’ psychological needs (especially the need to participate in shaping values and goals), people become passive, disengaged, and uninterested in achieving long-term results.

To validate this theory, let’s consider a counterexample: what happens if a company excludes staff from strategic decision-making? Imagine an organization that hires top-tier internal or external experts to write a polished strategic plan. Even if the final document checks every box, does that mean the planning job is complete?

Fortunately, we can answer that question with confidence. Decades of experience across industries and countries show that implementation—not planning—is the ultimate test. Execution reveals the factors that determine success or failure, and many of them are intangible:

• Whether employees understand and accept the strategic goals

• How closely their personal values align with those of the organization

• Whether they identify with the company and feel a sense of belonging

• Whether they perceive their work as meaningful to the organization’s success

• Their willingness to take ownership and invest in continuous improvement

In simple terms, will people give their full effort to realize the company’s strategy? Or will they stay on the sidelines, uninvolved in shaping the company’s future? Studies suggest the latter leads employees to spend up to half their time on personal agendas.

The difference between these two scenarios is stark. The first creates a high-performing, resilient company. The second leads to stagnation or collapse. A company that fosters detachment through its culture doesn’t just lose competitiveness—it risks ceasing to exist altogether.

Ultimately, this is the cornerstone of effective people management—and often the determining factor in whether a company survives and thrives.