When your boss says “be more strategic,” the feedback may not mean what employees think it does

Some workplace feedback phrases create as much confusion as “I need you to be more strategic.” Employees often leave those conversations unsure whether they were criticized, encouraged, or told, in an indirect way, that they are not operating at a senior enough level yet. The phrase sounds important, but many managers never clearly explain what it actually means in practice. According to Gallup research, employees perform best when expectations and communication remain clear and actionable rather than vague or abstract.

The challenge is that the word “strategic” may have entirely different meanings for different managers, depending on their own needs and desires. For example, one manager might be looking for improved prioritization and long-term vision; another might be looking for less detail about specific tasks and more context during presentations; still others might be using the term strategically to mean that they want their employees to think ahead to the implications of certain actions rather than just carry out instructions. The issue with this is that it will be difficult for employees to learn how to improve in any way without a clear definition. The lack of a defined set of behaviors makes it hard for employees to know exactly what they need to change and improve.

The phrase often becomes shorthand for several different expectations

In real-world settings, “be more strategic” often means that there are several recurring themes at work in an organization. There may be a need for workers to better link their duties with broader organizational goals. There may be a greater need for sound judgment regarding trade-offs, priorities, and communications. In some instances, the request may actually relate to a need for more executive-level communication than technical communication. As stated by Gallup in its analysis of workplace communications, having unclear objectives becomes even more stressful when workers must improve in this area without knowing what they are trying to do.

The expression tends to be misunderstood in opposite ways by employees. There are those who regard the statement as confirmation of their lack of readiness to think strategically as a leader. There are also those who discard the statement outright as meaningless corporate rhetoric. However, the latter is generally not the most effective strategy. According to experts, it would be better to make the concept more tangible by seeking examples from managers on how the presence of strategic thinking could have influenced a recent decision or outcome. This would allow the conversation to focus less on the issue of personal identification and more on training and coaching.

Employees benefit most when “strategic” becomes behavioral instead of abstract

Trust is one of the biggest variables in how feedback of this kind is received. According to the trust research carried out by Gallup, employees understand ambiguous feedback from leaders differently based on the strength of the relationship between them. The vaguer the feedback in low-trust workplaces, the greater the tendency to interpret it as moving-goalpost criticism. This is why specific feedback is important. It is difficult to grow when the benchmark to work towards is abstract. Instead, it is possible to develop behaviors in areas like decision making, presentation skills, prioritization, or communication.

The best way to deal with such feedback is to clarify calmly. This can involve asking for an explanation of what being "strategic" would look like in a particular project. At times, the feedback is valid and aimed at helping employees grow. However, when the phrase keeps being used repeatedly without examples or clear directions, it becomes legitimate to wonder whether it is a problem with the employees' understanding or the manager's ability to define the benchmark.