Good Strategy / Bad Strategy

Framework for separating real strategy from the ambitious wish-lists, motivational goals, and buzzword-laden documents that pass for it. Based on Richard Rumelt's thesis that most "strategies" are not strategies at all — they are statements of desire. A real strategy names the challenge, chooses an approach, and coordinates actions so that power is concentrated where it matters.

Core Principle

A strategy is a way through a difficulty, an approach to overcoming an obstacle, a response to a challenge. (McKinsey — Rumelt)

If a document does not name a challenge and does not propose a coordinated way through it, it is not a strategy — however ambitious, well-funded, or unanimously supported. The heart of good strategy is insight into the situation and the honest choice of where to concentrate effort. Most bad strategy is the active refusal to make that choice.

The structure: every real strategy has a Kernel (diagnosis → guiding policy → coherent action). Every sustained advantage comes from applying one or more sources of power (leverage, focus, proximate objectives, chain-link systems, design, dynamics, and exploiting competitor inertia). Every bad strategy displays one or more of the four hallmarks (fluff, failure to face the challenge, mistaking goals for strategy, bad strategic objectives).

Scoring

Goal: 10/10. When reviewing or building a strategy, score it against the principles below. A 10/10 has (a) a sharply named diagnosis, (b) a guiding policy that channels action, (c) coherent mutually-reinforcing actions, (d) at least one source of power consciously applied, and (e) zero hallmarks of bad strategy. Lower scores indicate missing kernel elements, uncoordinated actions, or uncorrected fluff. Always return the score and the specific gap to close.

The Framework

1. The Kernel of Good Strategy