"Decisions on the future of the company will not be driven by any particular ideology." If you read this in your company's strategic plan or in the chairman's statement in the annual report, it would seem a bit jarring. Ideology in business? Surely not. If it were changed to read: "Decisions on the future of the company will not be driven by any particular strategy", you might find it equally jarring. A company without a strategy is rudderless. Then see how these sound: "Decisions on the future of the company will not be driven by any particular vision." That sounds wrong. It is expected, on the other hand, that there would be no place for ideology in business.

The phrase above is borrowed from the Minister for Public Enterprise, Ms O'Rourke's address at the recent SIPTU seminar on State-owned companies, where she reiterated that the Government's approach would be practical rather than ideological. This means whatever works in the circumstances to enable state companies to be "competitive and cost-effective", and she said, "in the interests of the economy, the taxpayers, the companies themselves, the employees of those companies and their customers". Mary O'Rourke's challenge, or in this context, opportunity, is the same as that faced by many a business strategist or writer of the chairman's speech how do you find words to describe what you think is the company's strategy?

There is a negative connotation to ideology, of course, particularly when ideologies such as marxism, socialism, capitalism or Thatcherism have supposedly been shown to be extreme and impractical. There is a sort of middle-class embarrassment at believing in anything too strongly.

In politics, people such as the Minister for Public Enterprise here and Tony Blair in Britain, claim to be non-ideological, in implicit contrast to some rival's defective approach. There is a search for a "third way", mentioned by Mr Blair in his article in The Irish Times this week.

But strategy is positive, although I note that the word was not used by Ms O'Rourke in her speech. I am sure the Minister would claim that her approach did not lack a strategy.

The trouble with strategy is that it too often ends up being described in cliches, betraying lack of thought. Objectives, tactics and strategy all get mixed up together.

Let us ask the typical chairman, what is your company's strategy?

To be competitive and profitable. And your brands? Leading. And your services? Top quality. Your market share? Growing or highest. Your profits will . . . ? Increase. Your strategy is also to have operations which are highly efficient and cost-competitive. Correct. Your strategic approach to achieve this? Further rationalisation, constant improvement.

Your people are? Our greatest asset. Why? Because they are highly-motivated, skilled and enthusiastic. What does your strategy say about sales? Grow them. About investors? Value them. About management? Reward them. About competitors? Compete with them, effectively, and when we're feeling aggressive, beat them. The business environment? It poses challenges and opportunities, and a few threats.

What choices do you face? Difficult ones. How does the future look? Bright. How will it all happen? If we all pull together.

Words chosen to describe strategy can end up like cotton wool wrapping, all wrapped around nothing. The point was well made recently by an executive from 3M that business plans should be written as stories or narratives rather than bullet points, as the latter breed cliches. Stories can get to the heart of what is distinct about a company and lead the reader through a line of thinking, in a way which slides upon slides of bullet points cannot.

Finding the language for strategy is an integral part of working out what the strategy is. One thing for sure is that there is a framework of assumptions within which analysis and decisions are made. We can call this framework our principles or vision; in a more stylised, self-conscious and political form, it is an ideology. Strategy comes directly out of it and from strategy, tactics. It may be astute, as in the case of the policy on semi-states, not to talk of ideology. It may be better not to try painfully to be good at the "vision thing" as George Bush haplessly said of himself. But someone, somewhere in an organisation, close to the leadership, ought to be able to describe principles and strategy in clear, distinctive terms. Otherwise, the pragmatic tactical approach ends up as nothing more than "making it up as we go along". Now when did you last read that in the chairman's report or the Minister's speech?

Oliver O'Connor is an investment-funds specialist