Strategy Needs to Stop Pretending to Be Rocket Science

Late last year, a certain chart was doing the rounds.  

On first impression, it looked kind of impressive. 

Like a mountain of intelligence towering over you. 

But then I looked again and realised this was the encapsulation of everything that was  bothering me about the discipline I’ve worked in my entire career.

Now don’t get me wrong, I like my job and I think strategy has an important role… However, the amount of people who continue to think it’s more important than what it’s there to do and change, is insane. 

Almost as insane as that chart. 

Because as much as there are nuances in strategy and as much as there are a vast number of frameworks you can follow, the basic premise of strategic thinking remains the same. 

• Where are you? 
• Where do you want to be? 
• What’s stopping you from getting there? 
• What is your strategy to achieve that? 

That’s it. 

It’s been pretty effective for more years than anyone doing strategy has been alive and  has worked successfully across every category – from adland to zoo park management. 

Hell, my dad was a human rights barrister and even he used it. 

And yet that mountain of strategic frameworks continues to get bigger.

Once upon a time I worked at an agency that LOVED strategic frameworks. Got giddy with them. 

And while they weren’t bad, they were basically those same four questions listed above - just written a million different ways, presented on a million different slides, using a million different symbols in an attempt to look like it was an academic approach. 

It wasn’t. 

Oh I get why companies do it. 

They love the idea of having their own proprietary strategic system, even if the most proprietary element of it is its name. 

When they have that, it lets them pretend they have a truly unique offering for the market and ensures when an employee leaves, the impact is lessened because the emphasis is on the system they used rather than the talent of the individual. 

In essence, proprietary strategic frameworks lessen the importance of the individual. I’m sure they weren’t created for that reason, but it has become a reason. But here’s the thing… 

Clients who truly get strategy can see what they’re doing.

It’s not that they won’t – or don’t – value what these companies can do, it’s just that they don’t blindly believe all the claims of uniqueness they are being told. 

And even more importantly, they value strategy in terms of what it enables, not what it claims it can enable. 

Which is why when a client asks me “what’s your strategic approach to solving problems?” … I respond pretty much the same way every time. 

That there is nothing really that different between the process we follow and the process everyone else does. The difference is the people I hire, the questions they ask, the people they ask them to and the creative ambition they see for you. 

Still stand by that. 

However there’s a lot of money to be made selling complex strategic processes. There are a lot of clients looking for some false sense of comfort and security. 

So while brands like Liquid Death, Gentle Monster, SKP-S and Minecraft (to name a few) continue to defy expectations and possibilities because they use strategy to enable the insane commercial power of creativity rather than stifle it, my discipline prefers to churn out an endless array of terms, tools and systems that often end up doing the total opposite of what strategy is supposed to enable... 

Clarity, simplicity, possibility and energy. 

And that’s why I find that chart so troublesome. 

Because even if there was a framework that amalgamated all the strategic approaches listed on that chart, all it would do is ensure you’re achieving the minimum standard… because the most powerful strategies are developed by individuals who see where you can be - not where a box tells them to go.