The same picture every year. Two days offsite, a nice hotel, an external moderator. Strengths-weaknesses analysis, market trends, competitive landscape. In the end, six strategic directions are on the flip chart, all formulated as “We will…”, all so broad that no one can disagree. Four weeks later, a PowerPoint presentation with 47 slides is available. Six months later, nothing has changed. <\/p>\n\n
\nMost strategy processes don’t fail due to a lack of analysis. They fail because they produce consensus instead of clarity. A strategy that everyone can agree on is usually not a strategy at all. <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
A management executive I advised put it succinctly: “We have an excellent strategy document. Everyone agreed. But ask me what we’re doing concretely differently than before the offsite, and I won’t be able to give you an honest answer.” The problem wasn’t the analysis; that was thorough. The problem was that the strategy process hadn’t forced a single genuine decision. “We focus on profitable growth” is not a strategy. It’s a given that no one can argue against, and therefore hurts no one.<\/p>\n\n
Richard Rumelt, one of today’s sharpest strategy thinkers, distinguishes between “Good Strategy” and “Bad Strategy.” Bad strategy is characterized by confusing goals with strategy, avoiding uncomfortable choices, and operating with buzzwords instead of concrete levers. Good strategy begins with an honest diagnosis, identifies the core of the problem, and derives a focused course of action that inevitably means not pursuing other directions. Three levers help to move from ritual to genuine strategy. <\/p>\n\n
Lever 1: Diagnosis Before Ambition<\/h2>\n\n
The most common mistake in strategy processes: starting with the vision. Where do we want to go? What are our ambitions? Which markets, which products, which growth targets? This sounds inspiring, but it skips the crucial step: an honest diagnosis of the starting point. The reason for this jump is understandable: diagnosis feels like stagnation to those eager for action. Executives want to demonstrate capability, not inventory problems. But whoever sets the direction before understanding the starting point is not making a strategic decision. They are guessing. <\/p>\n\n
Before you know where you want to go, you need to understand where you are and why. Not the SWOT analysis on the flip chart that everyone knows and that is rarely honest because no one names the real weaknesses in the presence of the board. But the uncomfortable questions: What is the core of our problem? Where are we actually losing to the competition, and why? Which assumptions about our business model are no longer valid? What internal capabilities are we lacking to do what we intend? <\/p>\n\n
A division head whom I supported in developing strategy for her area did not begin her process with a vision session, but with a “Brutal Honesty Session”: three hours during which her team was only allowed to name problems, no solutions, no ambitions. The list was long and uncomfortable. But it was the foundation for a strategy that actually targeted the right levers, instead of imposing ambitious goals over unresolved problems. <\/p>\n\n