> "A good strategy includes a set of coherent actions. They are not "implementation" details; they are the punch in the strategy. A strategy that fails to define a variety of plausible and feasible immediate actions is missing a critical component."
Hints at something important. It is also assertive and convincing, dangerously so. Note that Rumelt is apparently smart and influential but also an academic.
The good part is that strategy is layered and gradual. There's probably no clear semantic line where strategy stops and operations or tactics start. The thing he criticizes here is a strategy that is too vague and incomplete.
The bad part is that he seems to fall into a very typical trap. The more concrete and detailed a strategy is, the more it bleeds into decisions that should not be made top down. A strategy that is too detailed fails to acknowledge the complexities of life and it dangerously assumes two things: Thinkers are smarter than they are, doers cannot make too many good ad-hoc decisions.
It might sound very good in the ears of some thinkers and decision makers, because it inflates their ego. Be wary of that. It's a red flag. It also sounds nice because seems to remove risk and the human factor, with a perfect strategy, you might assume that people are interchangeable. It's simply not the case.
A good strategy is simple and short enough so it can be taught in less than one hour or so and understood by everyone. The most efficient organizations, teams, armies, communities, groups etc. that have proven to succeed under the most adversity, pretty much all have rock solid, agreed upon core principles and plans that everyone executes dynamically in a decentralized fashion.
Don't be fooled by 'too big to fail'-type oligopolies. They are often past the point where they need to do anything more than risk mitigation and value extraction. Anything else is just keeping people busy. Look at how people survive or win 'against all odds', especially if they can pull it off consistently and over long periods of time.
> "A good strategy includes a set of coherent actions. They are not "implementation" details; they are the punch in the strategy. A strategy that fails to define a variety of plausible and feasible immediate actions is missing a critical component."
Hints at something important. It is also assertive and convincing, dangerously so. Note that Rumelt is apparently smart and influential but also an academic.
The good part is that strategy is layered and gradual. There's probably no clear semantic line where strategy stops and operations or tactics start. The thing he criticizes here is a strategy that is too vague and incomplete.
The bad part is that he seems to fall into a very typical trap. The more concrete and detailed a strategy is, the more it bleeds into decisions that should not be made top down. A strategy that is too detailed fails to acknowledge the complexities of life and it dangerously assumes two things: Thinkers are smarter than they are, doers cannot make too many good ad-hoc decisions.
It might sound very good in the ears of some thinkers and decision makers, because it inflates their ego. Be wary of that. It's a red flag. It also sounds nice because seems to remove risk and the human factor, with a perfect strategy, you might assume that people are interchangeable. It's simply not the case.
A good strategy is simple and short enough so it can be taught in less than one hour or so and understood by everyone. The most efficient organizations, teams, armies, communities, groups etc. that have proven to succeed under the most adversity, pretty much all have rock solid, agreed upon core principles and plans that everyone executes dynamically in a decentralized fashion.
Don't be fooled by 'too big to fail'-type oligopolies. They are often past the point where they need to do anything more than risk mitigation and value extraction. Anything else is just keeping people busy. Look at how people survive or win 'against all odds', especially if they can pull it off consistently and over long periods of time.