And I think that much work needs to be done within the strategy discipline to improve materialization - like that word and may borrow it.
The strategy discipline, writ large, has made a mistake in leaving that domain to those who would work on "implementation/execution." That is the way consulting companies divide up their work. "Oh we have finished the strategy. Now we need to sell you an implementation study."
To me, that totally abdicates responsibility.
But worse still, the (so-called) strategists in this scenario never develop their capability in materialization - which is a big part of your critique in your initial message.
To be a useful strategist, you have to take full responsibility for materialization. That changes completely how you do strategy and what strategy looks like.
Again, I think there is no daylight between your view and mine on this front.
I'm really pleased to hear we're aligned on this issue. I came into management consulting after 17 years working in traditional industries, and during that time I saw firsthand how consultants can lack understanding of 'shop floor' realities - which often prevented their strategic recommendations from being implemented. My colleagues and I had to deal with these challenges while typically bearing the blame for any delays or failures.
Could this be why the major consultancies are steadily shifting toward technology implementation and away from this riskier strategic work?
And I think the thing that has made me a better strategist today compared to 10 years ago is that I now am much better at helping clients with PTW cascading.
On one hand, I am in total agreement with the underlying view - which is that being involved with the totality of strategy and its impact on the company is important for learning and becoming expert.
On the other hand, the idea of 'execution' is an anathema to me - which I have written about repeatedly in the series.
I simply don't buy and don't recognize the distinction between strategy and execution. To me strategy choices are made throughout the company from top to bottom. I have learned that over decades of practice - and it makes me a better strategist to understand that the strategy choices made at the top of the company have to set the context for strategy choices made below. And if the strategy above makes it harder for those strategy choices below to be made, then it isn't a great strategy - and is in fact likely a bad strategy, because nothing that the strategy above specifies will actually happen.
For me, any strategy choice has to be seen in the context of the strategy choices from which it flows and the strategy choices that it begets.
I think we're in complete agreement. When I said "execution," I meant the totality of strategy - from design through to its materialization - and I'm happy to use different terminology. Many prefer "implementation" or other terms, and the label matters less than the concept.
My key point is that strategists must address the real challenges of materialization during the design phase itself - before strategy turns into action. This means understanding how choices cascade through organizational levels and ensuring upper-level strategy enables rather than constrains the choices below. Otherwise, as you rightly note, we end up with strategies that look good on paper but can't actually happen because they make downstream strategy choices harder rather than easier.
Thanks, Roger, for the usual insightful article. This is really helpful especially to reflect on the practice, most of us, I believe, are not good at it.
I am insisting for an article for the application of PTW for buyer market (monopsony) situations. With especial consideration of this monopsony is government agency.
I strongly agree with the idea of strategy connoisseurship - but I’d add that the ability to judge strategy well is inseparable from years of hands-on participation in strategy execution, not just formulation or critique.
You can only really sense why one strategy is superior to another after you’ve lived through the messy reality of making strategic choices concrete: allocating resources, resolving trade-offs, dealing with unintended consequences, and watching assumptions collide with reality. Execution exposes what looks elegant on paper but collapses under pressure - and, conversely, what initially appears imperfect yet proves resilient and adaptive over time.
That said, execution alone is not enough. Judgement matures through a continuous dialogue with other perspectives: reading, listening, and learning from other strategists, practitioners, and disciplines. This external input sharpens perception and prevents experience from hardening into dogma. But it only becomes meaningful after you’ve personally experienced the strategy development and execution process - otherwise it remains abstract.
Over time, judging strategy becomes a multi-criteria process rather than a single metric exercise. Different strategists implicitly prioritize different dimensions: customer value versus profitability, short-term performance versus long-term positioning, focus versus optionality, discipline versus adaptability. These priorities are not neutral - they reflect each strategist’s underlying worldview, experience, and preferences. Two people can assess the same strategy and disagree honestly because they weight criteria differently, not because one is “wrong.”
This is where reflective practice becomes essential. Without reflection, experience merely accumulates; it doesn’t compound. Writing, in particular, forces clarity: it exposes weak causal links, implicit assumptions, and borrowed opinions masquerading as insight. Reflection also creates the stillness you mention - the space to resist being overwhelmed by numbers, frameworks, or fashionable narratives.
I also agree that discernment requires restraint. Not everything experienced or learned deserves integration. Connoisseurship grows not by accumulation, but by careful selection - by sensing which experiences genuinely deepen understanding and which merely add noise. That sense can’t be outsourced to models or consensus; it has to be cultivated.
In that way, strategic judgement resembles craftsmanship more than science: learned through practice, refined through reflection, informed by others, but ultimately grounded in lived experience.
I immediately recalled the most enjoyable tastings I have attended. There's always a pause after the sip, and in that moment of silence, the sommelier integrates sensory perception with layers of creative, historical, and scientific knowledge. Then, on the spot, the best sommeliers tell a compelling story.
An excellent strategist operates the same way. They pause to synthesize context, data, and experience. The best will resist impulsive conclusions. Then they speak with precision, and deliver a confident recommendation.
Hi Roger, thank you for sharing your take on this and your personal approach.
Your reply to Alex resonates with a view that I have been developing inspired by your work - that strategy is only useful when every person thinks of themselves as holding a piece of that strategy and doing their best to contribute to it. These pieces integrate into an overall puzzle that can be surfaced as the real strategy. A consistent extension of PTW cascading.
When you talk about 'painting by numbers' it indicates 'abductive' reasoning - forming a hunch to be validated - which is so unique for the logic of strategy - and a field where we can still compete as humans.
Yup. Total agreement.
And I think that much work needs to be done within the strategy discipline to improve materialization - like that word and may borrow it.
The strategy discipline, writ large, has made a mistake in leaving that domain to those who would work on "implementation/execution." That is the way consulting companies divide up their work. "Oh we have finished the strategy. Now we need to sell you an implementation study."
To me, that totally abdicates responsibility.
But worse still, the (so-called) strategists in this scenario never develop their capability in materialization - which is a big part of your critique in your initial message.
To be a useful strategist, you have to take full responsibility for materialization. That changes completely how you do strategy and what strategy looks like.
Again, I think there is no daylight between your view and mine on this front.
Thanks
Roger
I'm really pleased to hear we're aligned on this issue. I came into management consulting after 17 years working in traditional industries, and during that time I saw firsthand how consultants can lack understanding of 'shop floor' realities - which often prevented their strategic recommendations from being implemented. My colleagues and I had to deal with these challenges while typically bearing the blame for any delays or failures.
Could this be why the major consultancies are steadily shifting toward technology implementation and away from this riskier strategic work?
Hi Morten. Nice to hear from you.
I agree fully with your point of view below.
And I think the thing that has made me a better strategist today compared to 10 years ago is that I now am much better at helping clients with PTW cascading.
Hi Alex. Always enjoy your comments.
I am of two minds on this question.
On one hand, I am in total agreement with the underlying view - which is that being involved with the totality of strategy and its impact on the company is important for learning and becoming expert.
On the other hand, the idea of 'execution' is an anathema to me - which I have written about repeatedly in the series.
I simply don't buy and don't recognize the distinction between strategy and execution. To me strategy choices are made throughout the company from top to bottom. I have learned that over decades of practice - and it makes me a better strategist to understand that the strategy choices made at the top of the company have to set the context for strategy choices made below. And if the strategy above makes it harder for those strategy choices below to be made, then it isn't a great strategy - and is in fact likely a bad strategy, because nothing that the strategy above specifies will actually happen.
For me, any strategy choice has to be seen in the context of the strategy choices from which it flows and the strategy choices that it begets.
Hope that is helpful.
Best,
Roger
Thanks for the comment Roger!
I think we're in complete agreement. When I said "execution," I meant the totality of strategy - from design through to its materialization - and I'm happy to use different terminology. Many prefer "implementation" or other terms, and the label matters less than the concept.
My key point is that strategists must address the real challenges of materialization during the design phase itself - before strategy turns into action. This means understanding how choices cascade through organizational levels and ensuring upper-level strategy enables rather than constrains the choices below. Otherwise, as you rightly note, we end up with strategies that look good on paper but can't actually happen because they make downstream strategy choices harder rather than easier.
Nice thoughts, Sabaa. I like your description and I think it is absolutely true about the best practice of strategy. Hope all is well.
Well how about that! Being a sommelier will make you a better strategist, my friend.
Two key points here:
1. Using relevant data to understand strategy, but seeing it as just another form of "qualitative" data
2. The importance of "reflective" strategy practice
The linked piece on "Manipulation of Quantities & Appreciation of Qualities" is incredibly relevant and pairs well with this piece.
I do believe we can only evaluate strategy in retrospect, i.e., considering the actual result it delivers.
Doing that enough allows us to evolve our ability to use qualitative judgment to see strategies as well-thought-out logical constructs.
Thanks, Roger, for the usual insightful article. This is really helpful especially to reflect on the practice, most of us, I believe, are not good at it.
I am insisting for an article for the application of PTW for buyer market (monopsony) situations. With especial consideration of this monopsony is government agency.
I strongly agree with the idea of strategy connoisseurship - but I’d add that the ability to judge strategy well is inseparable from years of hands-on participation in strategy execution, not just formulation or critique.
You can only really sense why one strategy is superior to another after you’ve lived through the messy reality of making strategic choices concrete: allocating resources, resolving trade-offs, dealing with unintended consequences, and watching assumptions collide with reality. Execution exposes what looks elegant on paper but collapses under pressure - and, conversely, what initially appears imperfect yet proves resilient and adaptive over time.
That said, execution alone is not enough. Judgement matures through a continuous dialogue with other perspectives: reading, listening, and learning from other strategists, practitioners, and disciplines. This external input sharpens perception and prevents experience from hardening into dogma. But it only becomes meaningful after you’ve personally experienced the strategy development and execution process - otherwise it remains abstract.
Over time, judging strategy becomes a multi-criteria process rather than a single metric exercise. Different strategists implicitly prioritize different dimensions: customer value versus profitability, short-term performance versus long-term positioning, focus versus optionality, discipline versus adaptability. These priorities are not neutral - they reflect each strategist’s underlying worldview, experience, and preferences. Two people can assess the same strategy and disagree honestly because they weight criteria differently, not because one is “wrong.”
This is where reflective practice becomes essential. Without reflection, experience merely accumulates; it doesn’t compound. Writing, in particular, forces clarity: it exposes weak causal links, implicit assumptions, and borrowed opinions masquerading as insight. Reflection also creates the stillness you mention - the space to resist being overwhelmed by numbers, frameworks, or fashionable narratives.
I also agree that discernment requires restraint. Not everything experienced or learned deserves integration. Connoisseurship grows not by accumulation, but by careful selection - by sensing which experiences genuinely deepen understanding and which merely add noise. That sense can’t be outsourced to models or consensus; it has to be cultivated.
In that way, strategic judgement resembles craftsmanship more than science: learned through practice, refined through reflection, informed by others, but ultimately grounded in lived experience.
Roger, the sommelier analogy is quite delightful.
I immediately recalled the most enjoyable tastings I have attended. There's always a pause after the sip, and in that moment of silence, the sommelier integrates sensory perception with layers of creative, historical, and scientific knowledge. Then, on the spot, the best sommeliers tell a compelling story.
An excellent strategist operates the same way. They pause to synthesize context, data, and experience. The best will resist impulsive conclusions. Then they speak with precision, and deliver a confident recommendation.
Happy New Year.
You couldn’t possibly have written a better lead to this article for me since I’m both sommelier and dealing with business strategy. 🍷
Hi Roger, thank you for sharing your take on this and your personal approach.
Your reply to Alex resonates with a view that I have been developing inspired by your work - that strategy is only useful when every person thinks of themselves as holding a piece of that strategy and doing their best to contribute to it. These pieces integrate into an overall puzzle that can be surfaced as the real strategy. A consistent extension of PTW cascading.
When you talk about 'painting by numbers' it indicates 'abductive' reasoning - forming a hunch to be validated - which is so unique for the logic of strategy - and a field where we can still compete as humans.
Thank you.
At Mike - interesting point - 'bad/poor strategy' shows ahead of time - 'good' clearer in retrospect. Check asymmetry of luck and thinking in bets.