Junk strategy

In our practice we get to see and review a lot of 'strategy' documentation.

Most of these are offered in the form of PowerPoint presentations with the word 'Strategy' emblazoned on the first page, followed by 60 to 100 slides of pictures and words, most of which aren't coherent or premised on any form of deeper-level thinking or insight.

Having a document that's labeled 'Strategy' doesn't mean that a quality, well thought-out, useful strategy actually exists.

In fact, 'junk strategy' - much like junk food (nutrient-deficient, high-calorie junk that offers the illusion of eating proper food) - is common and extremely bad for the long-term health of an organisation.

It gives management the false impression that the hard work of strategy has been done, but leaves the future of the organisation in jeopardy.

Increasingly what we also find is that strategy is now being delegated to ChatGPT, which is very good at putting impressive sounding slop on a page, but carries with it zero value in terms of guidance.

It's just junk.

When done properly, strategy needs to be personally experienced to be of any worth.

To offer you an analogy, you can study and write a million words about having an orgasm, but never truly understand what the experience of having one is like, until it is experienced. It's only through the direct experience of the concept that you can better define what it is for yourself.

The same is true for strategy.

Words on a page are meaningless without a direct experience of the preferred future - using imagination and foresight - that you are intending to bring about with strategy.

A quality strategy doesn't require a hundred lazy PowerPoint slides to get the job done.