Live data from Hacker News

Strategy is not X

umr.io

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Strategy is not X

#51
post #10

Interesting that he's not sure what a strategy consists of after reading the book. I read the same book and it does give a definition, with three essential parts, but frustratingly doesn't then link the examples back to show how they illustrate the definition. Rumelt says good strategy consists of: "1. A diagnosis that defines or explains the nature of the challenge. A good diagnosis simplifies the often overwhelming…

I’m with you here. It was quite clear what is and isn’t a strategy by the end of the book. I even made a YouTube video summary of this topic outlining these points.

I think if you start with 1. you can figure out the rest from there. If you can’t see what’s broke, you can’t fix it.

Re: Strategy is not X

#52

Someone else mentioned Mintzberg, well worth a read. It will shatter many folk theories of what strategy is. Having said that I'll give a vague answer. Strategy is consciously deciding on one policy while sacrificing another. If we play a high line, we can't low block around the penalty area. If we press like mad, we can't conserve our energy. If we play the tall guy up front we are committing to crossing the ball, n…

Which Mintzberg book(s) would you recommend?

IIRC Strategy Safari.

Re: Strategy is not X

#53
post #10

Interesting that he's not sure what a strategy consists of after reading the book. I read the same book and it does give a definition, with three essential parts, but frustratingly doesn't then link the examples back to show how they illustrate the definition. Rumelt says good strategy consists of: "1. A diagnosis that defines or explains the nature of the challenge. A good diagnosis simplifies the often overwhelming…

I’m with you here. It was quite clear what is and isn’t a strategy by the end of the book. I even made a YouTube video summary of this topic outlining these points. I think if you start with 1. you can figure out the rest from there. If you can’t see what’s broke, you can’t fix it.

I've seen the advice in other contexts that "if you get into a crisis, step one is to define what success is and what's failure". Otherwise you end up flailing around without accomplishing anything.

Re: Strategy is not X

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m with you here. It was quite clear what is and isn’t a strategy by the end of the book. I even made a YouTube video summary of this topic outlining these points. I think if you start with 1. you can figure out the rest from there. If you can’t see what’s broke, you can’t fix it.

I've seen the advice in other contexts that "if you get into a crisis, step one is to define what success is and what's failure". Otherwise you end up flailing around without accomplishing anything.

Definitely agree here. I've seen this firsthand in crisis ranging from car crashes to service outages. If nobody has a definition of success in these situations, then everybody is going to be chasing a soccerball like a group of toddlers and nobody is going to score a goal.

Re: Strategy is not X

#55
I've been thinking of a definition of strategy for quite a long time alongside a friend and colleague. We opted for the following: Strategy the link of useful choices which need to be taken to reach a new desirable state starting from the current state.

Re: Strategy is not X

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People want all the rewards with none of the risk. But what’s funny is they are still taking the risk of failure. It’s more that they can fail and shift all blame away by saying “we did it all right, it just didn’t work”. It’s easier than doing the work themselves. I just think we would all be better off if we told people it’s OK to try and fail, as long as we learn from those failures. We need to support people tryi…

And I think these comments summarize why consultants like Accenture, KPMG, McKinsey, etc survive today. They are for leaders who want to shift strategy risk away from their own responsibility. Whether a strategy succeeds or fails; consultants have a finite lifespan with the organization

Yea absolutely. So much of it is a shell game (in some companies) where you attempt to shift blame and take credit for successes. Those type of consultancies help facilitate the game.

Re: Strategy is not X

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I like this comment a lot. Any true strategy will need to have a specific outcome, and therefore can fail if the outcome is not reached. On the other hand, if you (or in my case the CEO) listen to any one of the thousand consultants who will tell you that, say, advertising on social media is a guaranteed path to sales, you can’t ever be wrong because you’ve implemented - as you say - “best practice” and “proven…

An aside - JIRA was a great product in it's time. It was free to use for any open source project. And many many open source projects willfully chose it, when there was no money involved.

The reason that open source projects chose it (as a cheap bug tracker) and the reason that corporates choose it (as a substitute for understanding what agile really means) are different tho, which is largely my point.

Re: Strategy is not X

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I think these comments summarize why consultants like Accenture, KPMG, McKinsey, etc survive today. They are for leaders who want to shift strategy risk away from their own responsibility. Whether a strategy succeeds or fails; consultants have a finite lifespan with the organization

Yea absolutely. So much of it is a shell game (in some companies) where you attempt to shift blame and take credit for successes. Those type of consultancies help facilitate the game.

Yeah as a (former) small business owner I’ve been thrown under the bus by consultants more times than I care to recall.

You’re an easy target when you don’t have the political pull to point out the absurdity of what’s going on.

Re: Strategy is not X

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea absolutely. So much of it is a shell game (in some companies) where you attempt to shift blame and take credit for successes. Those type of consultancies help facilitate the game.

Yeah as a (former) small business owner I’ve been thrown under the bus by consultants more times than I care to recall. You’re an easy target when you don’t have the political pull to point out the absurdity of what’s going on.

What’s always been surprising to me is that more people don’t recognize it. My background didn’t give me the education I’m wish I had either, in fact I got the opposite. But it didn’t take all that long in the real world to see it. Maybe people just accept what they see and roll with it.

Re: Strategy is not X

#60
post #26
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>between tactics and strategy lies My two cents. In business ( And straightly in the sense of business, because the context changes if you apply to War ). I would consider tactics as something that sit between Strategy and Execution. Strategy as direction, or vision and goal. Whether you should enter a specific market, or pursue certain market opportunities. Tactics as steps and moves to achieve that goal. Execution…

I’m asking this only because I’m curious to know what your answer would be, so even if my question persents some pushback to what you wrote, please know it is only my interest go “dig a bit deeper”. The way you define strategy here “ Strategy as direction, or vision and goal.” is exactly what the linked article (and the book) says strategy is not. I.e. “Strategy is not your goals” and “Strategy is not a vision statem…

Sorry I dont have time to write a short, concise and coherent answer which will probably take hours. So I will write a long one :) But take this with a grain of salt. And may likely be controversial / unpopular opinion on HN, as it always has been in the past.

The article mentions it is not a vision statement or goal. Those are true in the example given. Your goal isn't MAU, revenue increase or time on app. Except this is such a low level vision that of course those are not right.

In an abstract division of Strategy and Execution, one can further divide Direction as higher level than Strategy, tactics before execution. So you have Direction > Strategy > Tactics > Execution. As you can see the middle part here is where the it is unclear. Most people only talk about Strategy and Execution, and I think we can, or should all agree if we had to put Direction and vision in the two, they will definitely belong to the Strategy part and not the Execution part.

Lets put an example. Tim Cook's Direction of Apple changed in 2014, in 2015 he announced Apple would be a Services Company, with the Strategy of Product as a Services and Doubling Services Revenue by 2020. That is a high level overview in case of iPhone sales stagnation. His job is to align the company as a whole in that direction.

Eddy Cue, in charge of Apple's Services will now have a direction of Doubling Services revenue, his strategy ( as it turns out ) was to bring in Apple TV+, Fitness from Apple Watch, and Apple Music. While pushing for additional increase in in every corner of Services Revenue. ( AppleCare, App Store etc )

Somewhere along the ling you will have managers, And their Direction will be to increase App Store revenue, Strategy will be to things like Apps Store Search Ads, tactics include forcing Sign up on Apps that were previously ignored or exempt etc etc.

At every level the word direction, strategy, tactics means different thing. And not everyone can have an high level overview.

The one thing I learned in twenty plus odd years in society, is that vision and direction is a very rare thing. Most people are very much lost in life. To the point I will say it is a natural born talent. You could give them all the same information. The same "Map". Some could only focus on the middle part, some could only read part of the map at one time. Some could read the whole map but still cant understand it. While some can see the faint hint of area beyond the map. Extrapolate information from and beyond the map. If you focus in a small part of the map, your Strategy will becomes what is listed in the article, MAU or revenue, short term interest. And the word strategy will change from where and how you view the map / situation.

Take a look at Intel, in terms of Strategic mistakes and execution failure in recent years. I commented on those in 2011 long before anyone thought Intel was doomed to fail. And now 98% of people think Intel is going to fail, I think Intel is going to succeed and be competitive within 4-5 years.

The reason why I hate the execution eats strategy for breakfast quote, is because the equation has always been success = Strategy x Execution. Execution has a large variables. It can be from 1 which is dysfunctional to a 100 like a start up. But execution will always be a positive integer. Strategy, despite the range of number may be less than 10, is the only thing in the equation that can have a negative number. You could execute perfectly at 100 but you will still be doomed to failure if your strategy has a negative number.

Some ( or nearly all )people tends disagree with this take. It was only in the past 3-4 years I found a rare video from Steve Jobs talking about execution and strategy when he retuned to Apple with the exact same take. People were saying Apple had execution problem in the 90s. When in fact they had a Strategy problem. And yet at the time no one see it as such.

Post reply on HN