I read this book after seeing a lot of recommendations in HN comments, and boy did it deliver. Other Rumelt's books are great too, but this one really reshapes your understanding of such an overused word as "strategy".
I would also recommend Value Based Strategy by felix oberholzer gee. Here’s a link to a video he made summarizing top ideas in the book: https://youtu.be/o7Ik1OB4TaE
> This is the first rule of strategy: strategy is contextual.
... Is there any aspect of anything business related that isn't contextual? Tactics are even more contextual than strategy. Optimisation is contextual. Programming is contextual. Sales is contextual. Cleaning is contextual, sometimes people leave contextual notes out saying "don't clean this desk".
The big problem with strategy is it is so contextual that you cannot, in fact, write a general article on "Getting More Strategic". Without a specific context to be strategic in, all that is left is a generic call to make good decisions. Which is a nice sentiment, but void of useful meaning. This article doesn't actually say very much, there is a high rate of platitudes because there isn't any context to talk about.
Strategy is how to decide which tactics to use. If your tactics are polished and well done, basic strategy will be enough. If the tactics are sub-par, I recommend a strategy of learning to execute better.
Yes, although the author tells us right away that "one of [their] ongoing obsessions" is "how to be seen as strategic". Hence writing the piece and getting it posted on HN.
by far the best content on strategy I have read is Peter Compo, a point he repeatedly makes is that the whole execution argument is meaningless without a strategy (and its many tactics, plans, compromises) to execute. So, what are you executing?
Execute basics like making a good product, answering your customer emails, keeping up on the utilities, etc. Basics you know you'll have to do regardless of strategy.
There's an old Drucker quote "there's nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all."
If you're in the wrong market or building for the wrong customers you can execute brilliantly on everything you mentioned and it won't matter. The only thing that matters is product market fit or finding it if you don't have it. That's what I see as unsaid in your parent's comment about "execute what though?"
... yes. One of us is missing the point. It's probably me, but even if you're running a lawn care company there will be annoying details you have to get right. That's execution.
Perhaps it's more that we are looking at it from different levels. A contrived example to illuminate:
If I'm running a lawn care company in the desert I can get all those annoying details right and still be unsuccessful. So strategy is not opening a lawn care company in the desert.
If you think I'm missing something you are saying, please let me know!
Haha sure, that works. Or tailor your services for xeriscaping. The thing is, that's sufficiently obvious that it's not the kind of thing we're usually looking for when we talk about "strategy". Important, yes, but probably not what I was asking about.
So maybe there's "strategy" on the level of "sell something that non-zero people want", then there's execution on the details, and then a higher level of strategy that's maybe related to fine tuning product market fit, etc. But that feels like a weird discontinuity in "strategy" along the priority axis, and definitely doesn't fit with the conventional tone of "strategic thinking", which is definitely more on the "higher" level end of that spectrum.
How do you decide what the basics are? maybe you should outsource answering customer emails instead of spending time doing them yourself? The basics is not a differentiator; strategy is. At best the basics is just a fitness measure of strategy. "Can I still do all the essential non-functional stuff, I must do, whilst pursuing my most valued goals?"
Strategy is about choosing how to achieve a goal, all the tactics, fitness measures/metrics, compromises, challenges to overcome but it's also the goal itself. Strategy should guide you, your tactics at play to deliver your ultimate goal. Execution is just doing that stuff hopefully focussing on the stuff that matters most.
This is nice and I enjoyed reading your experiences, though this is wrong:
> Wisdom is possessing a beyond-expert vocabulary of effective tactics that will work in a given discipline at that time.
Wisdom is the ability to navigate ignorance. Wise people do not fail when they are ignorant, they proceed with humble caution until the unknowable challenges are behind them.
Let me guess, you’re an ESTJ? I know, it isn’t fair, your brain is optimized for literal perception, not to see the world as a framework of principles. Though you generate abstract principles from your experience, so you and the product of your efforts can be appreciated by those who value principles.
Strategy is knowing how to frame and manipulate the rules of “the game”. And tactics are specific applications for exploiting those rules.
I just wanted to let you know that the reason you're being downvoted is probably the perceived condescension in your use of the Myers Briggs test (which is effectively just a horoscope for pseudo-intellectuals).
It just means someone who is part of a demographic that isn't as represented as would be expected based on the average. E.g., if Black folks are 10% of the residents of your city and you had 1 Black individual in an office of 20 people, they'd be under-indexed. If you had 2, they wouldn't be.
I think in the context of the article it might be more skill related - eg if you were the only engineer in a room full of people making engineering decisions.
You might not be marginalised in the greater business, but for a particular project or strategic issue you might be under-represented.
Not exactly–in my example above the 1 Black person in 20 or the 2 Black folks out of 20 would be "under-indexed" and "not under-indexed" respectively but all 3 are members of a marginalized group
I guess I’m an “under-indexed person” (whatever that is) because I didn’t really enjoy that.
I’ve always been a Porter guy when it comes to business strategy though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter's_generic_strategies
Non-mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter's_generic_strategies
I read this book after seeing a lot of recommendations in HN comments, and boy did it deliver. Other Rumelt's books are great too, but this one really reshapes your understanding of such an overused word as "strategy".
I would also recommend Value Based Strategy by felix oberholzer gee. Here’s a link to a video he made summarizing top ideas in the book: https://youtu.be/o7Ik1OB4TaE
Can anyone recommend a good summary?
After skimming a few, I think this is a good one: https://jlzych.com/2018/06/27/notes-from-good-strategy-bad-s...
Though a lot of the value of the book is in the examples, so if you like the summary, I'd encourage you to read the whole thing.
Thank you! My initial hunch was to treat it as a self-help book but it does look something better than that.
> It’s never been easier to be DDOS’d by the job and think that means we’re doing a good one
Loved this line; a good reminder!
> This is the first rule of strategy: strategy is contextual.
... Is there any aspect of anything business related that isn't contextual? Tactics are even more contextual than strategy. Optimisation is contextual. Programming is contextual. Sales is contextual. Cleaning is contextual, sometimes people leave contextual notes out saying "don't clean this desk".
The big problem with strategy is it is so contextual that you cannot, in fact, write a general article on "Getting More Strategic". Without a specific context to be strategic in, all that is left is a generic call to make good decisions. Which is a nice sentiment, but void of useful meaning. This article doesn't actually say very much, there is a high rate of platitudes because there isn't any context to talk about.
Strategy is how to decide which tactics to use. If your tactics are polished and well done, basic strategy will be enough. If the tactics are sub-par, I recommend a strategy of learning to execute better.
Yes, although the author tells us right away that "one of [their] ongoing obsessions" is "how to be seen as strategic". Hence writing the piece and getting it posted on HN.
execute what though?
by far the best content on strategy I have read is Peter Compo, a point he repeatedly makes is that the whole execution argument is meaningless without a strategy (and its many tactics, plans, compromises) to execute. So, what are you executing?
Execute basics like making a good product, answering your customer emails, keeping up on the utilities, etc. Basics you know you'll have to do regardless of strategy.
There's an old Drucker quote "there's nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all."
If you're in the wrong market or building for the wrong customers you can execute brilliantly on everything you mentioned and it won't matter. The only thing that matters is product market fit or finding it if you don't have it. That's what I see as unsaid in your parent's comment about "execute what though?"
... yes. One of us is missing the point. It's probably me, but even if you're running a lawn care company there will be annoying details you have to get right. That's execution.
Perhaps it's more that we are looking at it from different levels. A contrived example to illuminate:
If I'm running a lawn care company in the desert I can get all those annoying details right and still be unsuccessful. So strategy is not opening a lawn care company in the desert.
If you think I'm missing something you are saying, please let me know!
Haha sure, that works. Or tailor your services for xeriscaping. The thing is, that's sufficiently obvious that it's not the kind of thing we're usually looking for when we talk about "strategy". Important, yes, but probably not what I was asking about.
So maybe there's "strategy" on the level of "sell something that non-zero people want", then there's execution on the details, and then a higher level of strategy that's maybe related to fine tuning product market fit, etc. But that feels like a weird discontinuity in "strategy" along the priority axis, and definitely doesn't fit with the conventional tone of "strategic thinking", which is definitely more on the "higher" level end of that spectrum.
I've typically heard the term "tactics" used to describe the lower level execution as opposed to the higher level "strategy".
How do you decide what the basics are? maybe you should outsource answering customer emails instead of spending time doing them yourself? The basics is not a differentiator; strategy is. At best the basics is just a fitness measure of strategy. "Can I still do all the essential non-functional stuff, I must do, whilst pursuing my most valued goals?"
Strategy is about choosing how to achieve a goal, all the tactics, fitness measures/metrics, compromises, challenges to overcome but it's also the goal itself. Strategy should guide you, your tactics at play to deliver your ultimate goal. Execution is just doing that stuff hopefully focussing on the stuff that matters most.
Here are some of my thoughts on strategy vs tactics: https://jonpauluritis.com/articles/books-strategy-tactics/
This is nice and I enjoyed reading your experiences, though this is wrong:
> Wisdom is possessing a beyond-expert vocabulary of effective tactics that will work in a given discipline at that time.
Wisdom is the ability to navigate ignorance. Wise people do not fail when they are ignorant, they proceed with humble caution until the unknowable challenges are behind them.
Let me guess, you’re an ESTJ? I know, it isn’t fair, your brain is optimized for literal perception, not to see the world as a framework of principles. Though you generate abstract principles from your experience, so you and the product of your efforts can be appreciated by those who value principles.
Strategy is knowing how to frame and manipulate the rules of “the game”. And tactics are specific applications for exploiting those rules.
I just wanted to let you know that the reason you're being downvoted is probably the perceived condescension in your use of the Myers Briggs test (which is effectively just a horoscope for pseudo-intellectuals).
Don’t sweat it. I know these idiots cannot see my amusing point.
The funny thing is …
What’s an “under-indexed” person?
I don’t know but it made me stop reading
It just means someone who is part of a demographic that isn't as represented as would be expected based on the average. E.g., if Black folks are 10% of the residents of your city and you had 1 Black individual in an office of 20 people, they'd be under-indexed. If you had 2, they wouldn't be.
So it's essentially synonymous with "marginalized"?
I think in the context of the article it might be more skill related - eg if you were the only engineer in a room full of people making engineering decisions.
You might not be marginalised in the greater business, but for a particular project or strategic issue you might be under-represented.
Not exactly–in my example above the 1 Black person in 20 or the 2 Black folks out of 20 would be "under-indexed" and "not under-indexed" respectively but all 3 are members of a marginalized group
[flagged]