Do procurement and supply chain job titles warrant the use of ‘strategic?’

“Strategic Sourcing Leader”

“Category Manager (Strategic)”

“Strategic Supply Chain Director”

“Head of Strategic Supply”

If you’ve collected as many procurement and supply managers’ business cards as we have, you’ll have noticed one ubiquitous word more than any other: strategic.

Why is it so overused? What led to the profession emphasizing so frequently that we are strategically-minded? And is it helpful? 

Shrugging off the tactical label

Our theory is that procurement spends so much effort insisting it is strategic because, for an inordinate amount of time, it simply wasn’t. Until the 1990s, we were seen as a back-office function, doing little more than carrying out purchasing orders (pun intended) from other parts of the business. 

The profession has made leaps and bounds since then to grow its influence in the organization, adding new sources of value such as risk mitigation, sustainability initiatives, innovation, and becoming trusted business advisors. 

In many organizations, however, we’re still not influential enough. Procurement is frequently left out of planning meetings or only called in at the last minute, at which point it’s too late to add much value. Therefore, our frequent talk of being strategic may be a not-so-subtle attempt to influence our way into getting a seat at the decision-making table. 

But overusing the term strategic is problematic. 

Do employers want strategists or executors?

Quartz’s founding editor Kevin Delaney argues that “the distance between strategy and execution is unfathomably wide for most businesses and executives”. In other words, businesses want people that can get stuff done. There’s certainly a need for thinkers, planners (and yes, even dreamers), but the overwhelming need is for executors. 

That isn’t to say that a “doer” can’t think or behave strategically. But labels matter. There is a perception that hiring a so-called strategic procurement professional means you’ll get someone who thinks only about the long-term while delegating the details to others.  

Dividing the profession into strategic and not-so-strategic

When a term is so pervasive, recruiters and hiring managers notice its absence in job titles. Why doesn’t this candidate have strategic in their title? Can’t they plan effectively? Are their sourcing decisions not based on facts and intelligence? 

The thing is that if anyone is making a procurement decision that isn’t strategic, they probably shouldn’t be doing it. Tactics, after all, are simply strategy in action. 

Strategic may be simply code for “senior,” like a badge that you earn as you climb the procurement career ladder. If this is the case, it’s similarly misleading – a recruiter might pass over a highly experienced and qualified candidate simply because they eschew the label. As Delaney points out, it would be better to drop the code and use the word “senior” instead. 

How to be strategic in procurement

19th-century English novelist Robert Smith Surtees once explained how to tell the difference between a gentleman and an imposter. 

“A person who is always talking about being a gentleman,” he wrote, “probably isn’t one.” 

Actions speak louder than words. Rather than insisting via our job titles that we are strategic, it’s much more effective to act and execute strategically. For procurement, this involves being able to:

• talk the language of the business

• understand your role within the context of company strategy

• define the value you contribute and how it enables success for the company

• think proactively and beyond the short-term cost savings only

• base decisions on well-researched data and analysis

… all without neglecting the crucial ability to get things done. 

To conclude with a tip for job seekers: it’s important to remember that having the word “strategic” in your job title at the top of your CV isn’t enough. It needs to be supported by detailed examples of how you’ve behaved strategically in past roles, and you should arrive at job interviews ready to expound upon them.  

One day, the profession will move away from overusing the term “strategic,” but it appears we must justify its inclusion in our job titles until then.