Another great one, Roger! Made me think of how, in physics, changes in phases of matter need the right temperature and pressure but also a perturbation to kick-start the phase change.
But that’s the domain of “things that couldn’t be any other way.” In business strategy I feel the problem is that we’re already beyond critical temperature/ pressure, AND with lots of perturbation… But we just haven’t found yet the right memetic package that could bring forward this “new strategy.”
I love your suggestions, and yet I keep getting amazed at how many people still misquote/ misinterpret Porter, Christensen, and yourself… So much “certainty theater” being sold as strategy. So many genuinely important priorities being always called “strategic,” no matter whether they’re operating imperatives or strategic choices; so people prioritize urgent imperatives, because the past and present are understandable, and thus take the oxygen out of the room for real choices about the future.
I don’t know. Sometimes it feels like the whole “let’s explain what strategy really is / what it should really be” ship has sailed. Perhaps we should involve the @categorypirates to language a new category into being. It worked alright for Bruce Henderson in the 1960s! 😅
I heard Mr Rumelt say something similar re: naming. He prefers to use the term "action agenda".
So we'd have many consultancies and self-proclaimed experts pretend they do strategy - though they only manage "strategic" (what else?) programmes - and real strategists doing real strategy but not saying it.
Strategy is also very much needed in scientific organizations to assure scientific excellence has impact on society.... We are working on this..., following your work !
The future of strategy won't come too soon for me.
Yesterday I saw a few job postings for strategy directors whose role was described as collecting data, analysing data, synthetising data (in "sophisticated" financial models) and presenting data (in PowerPoint decks) to the CEO (who seems to outsource the "strategy" to his CSO).
Experience required was a deep knowledge of the industry.
I must add this is typical of what I see weeks in, weeks out.
Love the Matryoshka doll framing for distributed strategy. That nested structure captures someting most orgs miss, each layer has to actually fit within the constraints above but stiill creates its own context below. I've seen teams try to "execute" grand strategy only to realize they're making real strategic choices at every level whethe ror not leadership acknowledges it.
Another great one, Roger! Made me think of how, in physics, changes in phases of matter need the right temperature and pressure but also a perturbation to kick-start the phase change.
But that’s the domain of “things that couldn’t be any other way.” In business strategy I feel the problem is that we’re already beyond critical temperature/ pressure, AND with lots of perturbation… But we just haven’t found yet the right memetic package that could bring forward this “new strategy.”
I love your suggestions, and yet I keep getting amazed at how many people still misquote/ misinterpret Porter, Christensen, and yourself… So much “certainty theater” being sold as strategy. So many genuinely important priorities being always called “strategic,” no matter whether they’re operating imperatives or strategic choices; so people prioritize urgent imperatives, because the past and present are understandable, and thus take the oxygen out of the room for real choices about the future.
I don’t know. Sometimes it feels like the whole “let’s explain what strategy really is / what it should really be” ship has sailed. Perhaps we should involve the @categorypirates to language a new category into being. It worked alright for Bruce Henderson in the 1960s! 😅
I heard Mr Rumelt say something similar re: naming. He prefers to use the term "action agenda".
So we'd have many consultancies and self-proclaimed experts pretend they do strategy - though they only manage "strategic" (what else?) programmes - and real strategists doing real strategy but not saying it.
It's a mad, mad, mad world
Lots of lessons here for "Chief Strategy Officers", who by your definition should not really deserve that title as functional heads in organizations.
Strategy is also very much needed in scientific organizations to assure scientific excellence has impact on society.... We are working on this..., following your work !
The future of strategy won't come too soon for me.
Yesterday I saw a few job postings for strategy directors whose role was described as collecting data, analysing data, synthetising data (in "sophisticated" financial models) and presenting data (in PowerPoint decks) to the CEO (who seems to outsource the "strategy" to his CSO).
Experience required was a deep knowledge of the industry.
I must add this is typical of what I see weeks in, weeks out.
Sigh...
Love the Matryoshka doll framing for distributed strategy. That nested structure captures someting most orgs miss, each layer has to actually fit within the constraints above but stiill creates its own context below. I've seen teams try to "execute" grand strategy only to realize they're making real strategic choices at every level whethe ror not leadership acknowledges it.
This article need to be printed and placed in front of all CEOs and Managers in the World.
Thank you Roger for showing how to fix Strategy, the world truly needs it.
Have a great week!
Excellent piece,
It is antithesis to the establishment, although it is a fact.
Would like to expand on "Nurture your imagination " part.