IntroductionWe pass an intriguing time of information overabundance always available to anybody. As a society, we still record rather over-qualified labor force, due to the general habit of looking for at least the bachelor degree, and nevertheless to the numerous universities striving for survival on the market, and therefore enrapturing and attracting the high-school graduates.As hiring opportunities, after years of distraction, we presently undergo a process of job requirements standardization, the focus being on the soft skills that 20-30 years ago used to be disregarded. And we also live a time of boosting the entrepreneurial spirit and enhancement of the SMEs activity. Given these features, one may say that strategic thinking should have been progressively imposed itself as a valuable tool able to sustain or impede the success of a business.Unfortunately, even if there is a propensity of superior managerial staff towards capitalization of strategic thinking at the overall business level, when it comes about its downward spread by means of functional strategies that compose it, both enthusiasm and awareness lose ground. Consequently, unless they somehow implement coherent functional strategies also aligned to the generic business strategy, both already functioning companies and start-ups with great potential could be deprived of their best outcomes.On the other hand, as proven by human experience, all types of strategies could work and be effective in certain conditions. Even more, no one can say that one strategy is better than another or guarantee some strategies' success. In this light, the difference lays in the handy and clever interlock of the country specific advantages and firm(-tobe) specific advantages. For achieving this specific aim, vertical (alignment) and horizontal (coherence) integration of each functional strategy, whatever they are, must be ensured.Therefore, the present paper does encourage decision-makers to focus on the logic and consistency of the business itself, on what are the requirements necessary to satisfy, rather than on what is fancy and glamorous as concepts and practices.Prerequisites of the integration processStrategy, its creation and downward propagationOver the years, many analogies have been made between chess and military strategy, as well as, later on, chess and business strategy. The simple explanation lies in the fact that not only the military actions, but also the business ones are concerned with competition and a whole list of tactics to be applied in order to succeed in dealing with adversaries. Besides the survival that both parties are looking for, this is also about identifying the most suitable strategy for assuring the gain. The means is the critical resource found at hand, no matter if we refer to tangible resource (assets, capital) or intangible, such as human resource, knowledge, etc. By wisely using them, the competitor on the market - or the battlefield - may gain such a great advantage that the others will be daunted.As in chess, a good strategist does not come into the business with a single preset strategy because this will most likely lead him to failure. Having a single focus in mind causes rigid attitudes and possible loss of opportunities. Instead of striving alone to find the most ingenious and effective strategies that are currently at work in some other organization, the managerial staff should take a holistic view of their own organization and look for integrating business drivers, processes, technology, knowledge, human and organizational factors.In the end, every organization's best chance for success is not copy-pasting the other organizations' strategies, but creating its own customized one. This, with outstanding implementation, is an undeniable sign of good management.Basically, irrespective of the definition, the essence of the business strategy is considered to be about identifying the most effective way of going ahead, and therefore making the right decision in picking the most suitable resources and methods to make that plan happen. …