This deeply resonated, especially the first point (the rest follow from there).
The main problem that I have is that “teaching what strategy is (and is not)” requires tone and commitment, especially because most of it is about un-learning things that an executive “should” know - which is particularly difficult as ego-threatening.
Check out the link I shared in the first prerequisite about how to introduce the concept of strategy to a team. Now with executives you need to tread even more carefully as they seem to think they know it all already.
I once helped build a strategy. We got buy-in from senior leadership. We invested months…defining metrics, rethinking segmentation, aligning with partner teams.
Then leadership changed. The new leader was skeptical and shifted focus to other levers. The first strategy never had time to show results. We had to start from scratch.
It was frustrating. But here’s the bigger truth about strategy: the analysis and theory are only a small part. The real work is messy, uncertain, and constantly evolving
So true. A lot of times we over index on the strategy and underplay the surroundings necessary - of which continuity is a big thing. We have seen many teams constantly changing strategy and getting nowhere because the leader keeps changing every 2 years and there is no continuity from top down as well. Thank you for sharing :)
This is a great conversation starter, especially your first point about executives mistaking ambition for strategy. I’ve found that a huge source of confusion comes from undefined terms. The words “business model,” “competitive advantage,” and “strategy” get tossed around interchangeably, when in reality they refer to very different things.
One tool I’ve developed is a Periodic Table of Business Strategy, which maps out the finite set of business models, competitive advantages, and strategic approaches that companies can choose from. Each “element” comes with its own critical success factors, so once you know which ones you’re combining, it becomes far easier to build a strategy that’s both aligned and executable.
Your three prerequisites fit nicely into this logic—especially the emphasis on choice and real engagement. Looking forward to seeing how your thinking on this evolves.
Thank you for sharing this Eric. Indeed words are often used out of context when developing strategy. This is primarily because of people just getting away with saying almost anything and over a period of time that erodes the language which in turn erodes thought. Where can I read about the Periodic tool? It would be interesting to see the parallels. Thank you for the comment.
Perhaps Cecile's company was subconsciously committed to their prior strategy, especially if it was formed or championed by a revered leader.
In some cases, teams have a "If it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality. I had a CEO of a telecom try to convince me that the process problems his people were reporting weren't worth addressing because his customers weren't complaining. (That took another 5-10 years to manifest fully and by then...)
But the point is that a successful prior strategy lulls executives into the deepest complacency - just think of Kodak. The pain to re-examine long-held quasi-religious beliefs is simply put off for some future date e.g. Southwest Airlines' overdue IT updates.
That is a good point Francis. A lot of companies are still relying heavily on the glory of past. It takes a very astute team and leader to know that it is always better to start a little early rather than late.
A lot of times this needs a fresh pair of eye as most of the organization might still be high from the success of the past l.
I like what you wrote and agree 100% with it, but I have found that outside of a leader change or a shifting event you already know what your company is like here with strategy. So think strategically and decide if this is worth staying for:)
This deeply resonated, especially the first point (the rest follow from there).
The main problem that I have is that “teaching what strategy is (and is not)” requires tone and commitment, especially because most of it is about un-learning things that an executive “should” know - which is particularly difficult as ego-threatening.
How would you go about this?
Check out the link I shared in the first prerequisite about how to introduce the concept of strategy to a team. Now with executives you need to tread even more carefully as they seem to think they know it all already.
I once helped build a strategy. We got buy-in from senior leadership. We invested months…defining metrics, rethinking segmentation, aligning with partner teams.
Then leadership changed. The new leader was skeptical and shifted focus to other levers. The first strategy never had time to show results. We had to start from scratch.
It was frustrating. But here’s the bigger truth about strategy: the analysis and theory are only a small part. The real work is messy, uncertain, and constantly evolving
So true. A lot of times we over index on the strategy and underplay the surroundings necessary - of which continuity is a big thing. We have seen many teams constantly changing strategy and getting nowhere because the leader keeps changing every 2 years and there is no continuity from top down as well. Thank you for sharing :)
This is a great conversation starter, especially your first point about executives mistaking ambition for strategy. I’ve found that a huge source of confusion comes from undefined terms. The words “business model,” “competitive advantage,” and “strategy” get tossed around interchangeably, when in reality they refer to very different things.
One tool I’ve developed is a Periodic Table of Business Strategy, which maps out the finite set of business models, competitive advantages, and strategic approaches that companies can choose from. Each “element” comes with its own critical success factors, so once you know which ones you’re combining, it becomes far easier to build a strategy that’s both aligned and executable.
Your three prerequisites fit nicely into this logic—especially the emphasis on choice and real engagement. Looking forward to seeing how your thinking on this evolves.
Thank you for sharing this Eric. Indeed words are often used out of context when developing strategy. This is primarily because of people just getting away with saying almost anything and over a period of time that erodes the language which in turn erodes thought. Where can I read about the Periodic tool? It would be interesting to see the parallels. Thank you for the comment.
Thanks for asking! I write at Bankshot Strategy and here's the direct link to the Periodic Table of Business Strategy: https://bankshotstrategy.substack.com/p/the-2025-periodic-table-of-business
Perhaps Cecile's company was subconsciously committed to their prior strategy, especially if it was formed or championed by a revered leader.
In some cases, teams have a "If it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality. I had a CEO of a telecom try to convince me that the process problems his people were reporting weren't worth addressing because his customers weren't complaining. (That took another 5-10 years to manifest fully and by then...)
But the point is that a successful prior strategy lulls executives into the deepest complacency - just think of Kodak. The pain to re-examine long-held quasi-religious beliefs is simply put off for some future date e.g. Southwest Airlines' overdue IT updates.
That is a good point Francis. A lot of companies are still relying heavily on the glory of past. It takes a very astute team and leader to know that it is always better to start a little early rather than late.
A lot of times this needs a fresh pair of eye as most of the organization might still be high from the success of the past l.
That must have stung, Cécile. I’ve seen similar moments and it always makes me wonder-was it the process that failed, or the courage to implement?
According to a McKinsey study, 70% of strategies fail not because they’re bad ideas but because of poor execution and lack of buy-in from leadership: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/why-strategies-fail. That’s a sobering stat.
I like what you wrote and agree 100% with it, but I have found that outside of a leader change or a shifting event you already know what your company is like here with strategy. So think strategically and decide if this is worth staying for:)
True indeed. From a personal strategy perspective I agree with you totally. Not worth spending more time at such a place, once you figure it out.