Unlearning Strategy Ebook

Unl
ear
ning
St
rat
egy
The1
0Mos tPer
sis
tentSt
rat
egy
Mythst
oForgetImmediat
ely
JEROENKRAAI
JENBRI
NK
Unlearning Strategy
The 10 Most Persistent Strategy Myths to Forget Immediately
Unlearning Strategy
The 10 Most Persistent Strategy Myths to Forget Immediately
Jeroen Kraaijenbrink
Effectual Strategy Press

Myth
noun
/mɪθ/
a commonly believed but false idea
a traditional story, esp. one which explains the early history

or a cultural belief or practice of a group of people,
or explains a natural event
(Cambridge Dictionary)
Copyright 2020 Jeroen Kraaijenbrink
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any

form or by any means, including photocopying and recording, or by any
information storage and retrieval system without prior permission of the
author. Requests for permission should be directed to
jeroen@effectualstrategy.com
ISBN: 978-90-823443-8-7 (e-book)
Published by Effectual Strategy Press, Doetinchem, Netherlands -

www.effectualstrategy.com
Cover image: Couleur @ pixabay.com

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................... 1
Myth #1: Strategy Is About Warfare ............................................. 5
Myth #2: Strategy Equals Planning................................................ 9
Myth #3: Strategy Starts With Goals ........................................... 15
Myth #4: Strategy Should Be High-Level ................................... 19
Myth #5: Strategy Should Be Simple ........................................... 23
Myth #6: Strategy Resides at the Top.......................................... 27
Myth #7: Strategy Can Be Made by Consultants ........................ 33
Myth #8: Strategy Derives From Data ........................................ 39
Myth #9: Strategy Requires Offsites ............................................ 43
Myth #10: Strategy Should Be Formulated ................................. 47
And Now? ...................................................................................... 51
About the Author .......................................................................... 57
More from Jeroen Kraaijenbrink.................................................. 59
Introduction
Strategy is a mess. I mean the way of thinking about strategy that

we know from our textbooks, and that is taught at many MBA
programs all over the world. It is the approach to strategy that is
driven by missions and visions, relies heavily on external and
internal analysis, is supported by numerous tools, and targets at
formulating and implementing a grand strategy that will beat the
competition over the next three or five years.
If you don’t know what I mean, have a look at the most recent
edition of Johnson, Scholes & Whittington’s (2017) Exploring
Strategy: Text and Cases, and browse its contents. With over a
million copies sold, it is one of the most popular strategy
textbooks ever. It has basically set the standard that is mimicked
by many others. As such, it provides a representative picture of
the dominant way of thinking about strategy.
The clearest indicator that strategy is a mess is the high failure
rate reported in academic studies. Depending on which study you
read, failure rates between 50% and an astonishing 90% are
reported. The range is wide, and largely dependent on how the
researchers measure success. But even if a critical examination
would cut this number in half, this failure rate is still extremely
high and something we certainly would not accept from any other
business process—or of anything else.
2 Unlearning Strategy
Another indicator that strategy is a mess is that the

approach—as well as the field in general—is heavily criticized by
many experts in business, consulting, and academia. I’d like to
single out one criticism because it is interesting due to its age. The
approach above was already called “traditional” and “distorted”
in 1984 (in a Long Range Planning article by Roy Wernham.) This is
more than 35 years ago (and the same year that the first edition of
Exploring Strategy appeared…). Ever since, similar criticisms have
been voiced by numerous experts. The most important criticisms
leveled, are that this approach to strategy is:
• Fragmented into too many tools and frameworks that, at

best, are only loosely connected.
• Too instrumental and focused on immediate usefulness.
• Too much emphasizing economic analysis at the expense
of more synthetic and artistic skills.
• Not sufficiently value-based, or focused on the wrong
values, thereby fostering individualistic unethical
behavior.
• Too simplistic and prescriptive in its reliance on case-
based solution-finding.
• Too much based on folk wisdom, gurus, and a pretense
of knowledge rather than valid theory.
• Losing its relevance in today’s world with content mostly
being decades old.
This is quite something, and impossible to ignore. Nevertheless,

while slightly and occasionally updated, the essence of the
dominant strategy approach has remained pretty identical over the
past decades. To see this, you can just take a random alternative
strategy textbook from whatever year, and there is a big chance
that you find more or less the same content as in Exploring Strategy.
Of course, there are differences, but the canonical ideas of what
business strategy is all about have remained remarkably stable over
all those years.
Introduction 3
On the one hand, we could see this as a remarkable success

story. After all, an approach that survives that long must be good.
On the other hand, it is this approach that is heavily criticized—
not just by outsiders or by the media, but by strategy professors
themselves.
This is interesting. It means we are stuck with a strategy
approach that we know doesn’t work and we are heavily
criticizing, but that we keep on using, promoting and teaching
anyway.
The main reason, I think, is that it is based on a set of myths
about strategy that are so strong and convincing that we keep
them alive, no matter what. The strength and broad acceptance of
these myths mean that we hardly dare challenge them or look for
alternative approaches—to the extent that we aren’t even aware
that they are myths. Instead, we all do strategy as we are supposed
to do, and thereby perpetuate the myths.
To break through this cycle, we must uncover and break the
myths; however, because they are so deeply ingrained in the belief
systems of many, this requires active unlearning. Only when we are
aware of what we hold for true, and why this is not valid, can we
start appreciating alternative approaches to strategy and expect to
move forwards.
Largely based on a series of articles I wrote for Forbes1, this
little book contains the ten most persistent myths about
strategy—and breaks them one by one over the next ten chapters:
Myth #1: Strategy Is about Warfare

Myth #2: Strategy Equals Planning
Myth #3: Strategy Starts with Goals
Myth #4: Strategy Should Be High-Level
Myth #5: Strategy Should Be Simple
Myth #6: Strategy Resides at the Top
1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeroenkraaijenbrink/
Myth #7: Strategy Can Be Made by Consultants

Myth #8: Strategy Derives from Data
Myth #9: Strategy Requires Offsites
Myth #10: Strategy Should Be Formulated
The first three myths concern the essence of what strategy is all
about. As I will argue in Chapters 1, 2 and 3, strategy is not about
war, not about planning and foresight, and not about achieving
pre-defined goals and purposes. The next two myths concern the
key characteristics that strategy is supposed to have: that it is high-
level and generic, and that it is simple and easy. In Chapters 4 and
5, I will explain why it is a mistake to believe this. Myths #6
through #9 concern who should make strategy and how it is
made. Discussing these four myths in Chapters 6 through 9, will
show that strategy needs to be made in a different way than we
usually assume. Finally, as argued in Chapter 10, Myth #10
challenges the whole idea of strategy as a noun, the idea that
organizations need a definable strategy that can be formulated and
executed.
Along with the demystification of these ten myths, the ten
chapters also sketch an alternative view to strategy that, I hope
and think, helps break the dogmatic insistence on the traditional
strategy approach as we know it, helps address the severe
criticisms, and helps improve strategy’s success rate. I will end
with a brief concluding section, summarizing the key takeaways
and how to move forwards—using the metaphor of jazz...
Happy unlearning!
Jeroen Kraaijenbrink
June 2020
1
Myth #1: Strategy Is About Warfare
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

― Sun Tzu
“A wise man gets more use from his enemies

than a fool from his friends.”
― Baltasar Gracian
The Myth
Many books on strategy start with informing you about the origins
of the term strategy. As they will tell you, the word strategy is a
derivation and combination of the Greek words strategos (general),
strategia (office of a general), stratos (army), and agein (to lead).
Accordingly, strategy is often defined as “the art of a general.”
Subsequently, these books often continue discussing the

history of the strategy field, referring to the works of influential
generals, most often Sun Tzu’s Art of War (around 500 B.C.) and
von Clausewitz’s On War (1832). Accordingly, the parallel
between strategy and warfare is drawn, arguing that strategy is
primarily about outsmarting and beating the enemy—the
competition.
Why it is Wrong
While strategy certainly has its role in warfare, and while there is a
lot of wisdom in military works about strategy which is applicable
in today’s organizations, the warfare connotation of the word
“strategy” is misleading for no less than five reasons.
Reason 1: Words have more than one meaning

The very fact that the word “strategy” is used in business as well
as in the military does not signify these words mean the same.
Words change in meaning. Take the word “awful.” Long ago, it
used to mean “full of awe,” which is about the opposite of what
it means today. Furthermore, the meaning of words also differs
between contexts. The word “mouse,” for example (hopefully),
means something different in the office to in the countryside. The
same applies to strategy. For reasons explained below, even
though business strategy and warfare strategy both use the word
strategy, they may not actually have much to do with each other.
Reason 2: There is no historical continuum

There is no continuous historical line from strategy in warfare to
business strategy. Business strategy has a very specific, around
140-year history, primarily shaped by business schools such as The
Wharton School and Harvard Business School, consultancy firms
such as McKinsey and BCG, CEOs of large firms such as Dupont
and General Motors, and foundations such as the Carnegie, Ford,
Myth #1: Strategy Is About Warfare 7
and Rockefeller. The interesting thing is, that the term “strategy”
wasn’t even used in business before the 1960s and was
uncommon before the 1970s. Like the first strategy course at
Harvard Business School, the field was called “business policy” or
“business policy and planning.” Along those same lines, the first
academic strategy journal was (and still is) titled Long Range
Planning. The term strategy was imported much later, and the field
was not relabeled “strategy” and “strategic management” until
1979.
Reason 3: Business is rarely about warfare

Even though it is often suggested that business is all about being
in war with the competition, this is only so in a small fraction of
cases. Yes, battles between Coca Cola and Pepsi, between Ryanair
and easyJet, and between Apple and Samsung may resemble war
and are interesting to remember and analyze, but for the large
majority of organizations on this planet, business is not about war
or killing the competition. Business is about making organizations
survive and prosper through creating distinct added value for
customers while operating in a challenging environment.
Reason 4: Organizations depend on competitors

In warfare, the ultimate purpose of strategy is to destroy the
fighting power of the enemy. Von Clausewitz allows no doubt
about that when he argues, “War is an act of violence pushed to
its utmost bounds.” Unlike in warfare, however, having a
successful organization generally does not require others to fail.
Often, you even need strong competitors, since your organization
depends on them; for example, to position yourself against them
in the market, to attract customers, to share resources, or to create
and maintain a market in the first place. This is why we have
shopping centers, regions such as Silicon Valley where
competitors cluster together, and industry associations which
represent and are funded by competing organizations.
Reason 5: Military strategy is not primarily about warfare

Of course, military strategy is about warfare. But not first and
foremost. The primary point of military strategy is to avoid war, to
create, keep and protect peace. Again, we can draw from von
Clausewitz when he calls war “politics by other means.” It starts
with politics, and only in exceptional cases does this lead to war.
So, even when we take military strategy as a starting point for
business strategy, it does not follow that warfare is the right or
even a useful metaphor.
What Then?
If not warfare, what then is the core of strategy? Of course, there
are numerous possible answers to this question. And we only have
to look at the hundreds of definitions of strategy available to see
that there is nothing close to agreement about this. But, if we stay
as close as possible to the theme of warfare and the history of
strategy, Lawrence Freedman provides a good definition in his
comprehensive and masterful book Strategy: A History. He defines
strategy as “the art of creating power.” Power here doesn’t refer
so much to having power over others, it is power as potential, as
in the ability to do stuff and make that we can exert control over
our own lives rather than that others are doing it. I’d like to think
that this is what strategy is about.
2
“In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless,
but planning is indispensable.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower
“Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action comes,
stop thinking and go in.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
The Myth
The widely shared assumption is that strategy should be generated
in the following way: You conduct a thorough analysis of your
organization and its environment, thereby paying particular
attention to the trends that are going on. Based on this analysis,
you make projections about what you expect is going to happen
or generate a set of strategic options. And then, you choose your

course of action, plan it accordingly, and write it down in a
strategic plan. While traditionally a five-year horizon was
considered appropriate, this is now usually reduced to three years
because that seems to be the period for which plans can still be
made. Accordingly, organizations are supposed to rethink their
strategy fundamentally around every three years. In the years in-
between, they are supposed to work according to the pre-defined
plan, and make only incremental adjustments should
circumstances dictate so.
Why it is Wrong
In a sense, strategy is of course about planning. As explained in
my previous article, it even used to be called “business planning”
or “long-range planning” in the past. And in whatever you do,
there is always some planning involved: you always think ahead—
consciously or unconsciously—about what your next step is going
to be. But beyond this very basic level of planning, the idea that
strategy is all about planning is a myth for a variety of reasons.
Reason 1: Definitions change

One of the most widespread definitions of strategy is the classical
definition by Alfred Chandler: “The determination of the basic
long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise and the adoption
of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for
carrying out these goals.” This definition is from 1962, more than
half a century ago. Ever since, the world has evolved, and so have
definitions. More recent definitions, even traditional ones like the
one by Michael Porter from the early 1980s (“Deliberately
choosing a different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of
value”), don’t have this built-in planning idea of strategy anymore.
Myth #2: Strategy Equals Planning 11
Reason 2: Strategy originated as an alternative for planning

When we look at the history of the concept of strategy in the field
of business, it is immediately obvious that strategy was introduced
as an alternative for planning. The term strategy was introduced in
business in the early 1970s, because already at that time people
found out that the concept of planning didn’t really work. Just
have a look at the titles of some early articles in Long Range
Planning: “Strategic Management: A New Managerial Concept for
an Era of Rapid Change” (1971), and “Why Has Planning Failed?”
(1972), and so on. So, it is exactly because planning had failed to
deliver its promise that strategy has been introduced as a response.
Reason 3: Planning is complemented by emergence

Parallel to planning, an alternative view on strategy has also
emerged: strategy as adaptation or emergence. Headed by Henry
Mintzberg, a whole school of strategy has developed that sees
strategy not so much as a planning process, but as an evolutionary
process of trial-and-error, learning and adaptation. As Mintzberg
points out in various of his works since the 1970s, the heart of
strategy is neither in planning nor adaptation, but finding the right
balance between them. Accordingly, strategy is not about
planning, but about balancing between sticking to your plan and
adapting to the changing circumstances and opportunities.
Reason 4: Prediction isn’t the only way to be in control

As Robert Wiltbank and colleagues argued in a 2006 article in
Strategic Management Journal, the planning vs. adaptation discussion
is just half the story. There is also a second dimension that should
be paid attention to: the extent to which we can control or
influence the future. Along with the idea that “to the extent we
can control the future, we don’t need to predict it,” strategy is also
about making things happen using your own resources,
competencies and power. Those aspects you don’t need to predict
and plan because you can exert influence on them right now.
Reason 5: Planning works best when strategy is least needed

Planning works only in predictable situations. As long as the
direction in which an industry develops is predictable and as long
as we stick to what we have been doing in the past, planning can
work. In these cases, we can extrapolate the trends of the past
toward the future. However, next to being rare, such situations
reflect exactly those cases where strategy is least needed. Strategy
is most needed when things change, are disruptive and uncertain,
or when you want to initiate something new. In such cases,
though, planning doesn’t really help because there is no reliable
basis for anticipating the future.
What Then?
There is a famous quote by Dwight D. Eisenhower, that “Plans
are nothing; planning is everything.” It suggests that plans are
useless because they will be outdated as soon as they are written
down—or before. The very act of planning, though, is useful
because it creates a common frame of reference so that, once
things change, everyone knows what to deviate from.
Creating this common frame of reference is one of the key
functions of strategy. So it is important. But this doesn’t imply
that it is planning that should provide this frame of reference. A
shared understanding of an organization’s strategic status quo can
serve this same purpose—and in a more effective way because it
doesn’t require speculation. Once we understand well what an
organization does today, we can point out quite specifically where
and how things should change toward the future.
This doesn’t require meticulous, long-term planning.
Wherever we look around us, we see more agile, adaptive
approaches emerging: in software development, in project
management, in innovation, in entrepreneurship, and so on. These
approaches distance themselves from the “waterfall” approach to
planning that is still present in strategy. Adopting elements from
Myth #2: Strategy Equals Planning 13
such more agile approaches, strategy can effectively liberate itself

from its planning-based history. The result is an approach to
strategy which limits the role of planning to the short-term, and
for the rest relies on a mix of adapting to changing circumstances
and effectuating the things you can influence.
3
Myth #3: Strategy Starts With Goals
“Strategy without process is little more than a wish list.”

― Robert Filek
“A goal without a timeline is just a dream.”

― Robert Herjavec
The Myth
There is a strong conviction that strategy has to start with
formulating clear goals. We can see this most obviously in
Chandler’s classical definition of strategy as “The determination
of the basic long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and
the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources
necessary for carrying out these goals.”
Along with this definition, the idea is that any strategy needs
to start with formulating an attractive, challenging, and clear
future state that the organization aims to realize. Such a clear

future state, so the idea goes, motivates employees, guides their
actions, and aligns everything the organization does.
In the past, we called these goals objectives, targets, missions,
and visions. Today, we rather call them “purpose” or, in Simon
Sinek’s terms, an organization’s “why.” But the idea is the same:
we need to formulate the destination before we can start the
journey.
Why it is Wrong
Starting with goals—in whatever version referred to above—
sounds nice and intuitive. And, like with planning, at the
fundamental level, there is always some sort of goal or intention
driving our behaviors. But beyond this, it is far from evident that
goals ought to be strategy’s universal starting point. There are
several reasons why this idea does not really hold.
Reason 1: Goals depend on what we think is possible

What we aspire for depends to a large extent on what we think is
possible. This is clear in consumer research. Famous in this
respect is a quote by Henry Ford, who said, “If I had asked people
what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” People
don’t know in advance what they want and need. It is only when
they see a concrete example or opportunity that they can
formulate this. This means that whatever goal is formulated, it is
always based on what we deem possible. This implies that strategy
starts just as well with our abilities and the opportunities we see,
as with pre-defined goals.
Reason 2: Human action doesn’t start with goals

Strategy is strongly influenced by what is called “teleological
thinking.” This is the idea that everything is done for some final
reason, with a particular end in mind. This idea is not only widely
Myth #3: Strategy Starts with Goals 17
spread in strategy. It has become part of our everyday way of

thinking. But this doesn’t mean it is correct. What we aspire or
aim for, codevelops with what we do. Goals don’t precede human
action; they are created during and by human action. Along the
same way, missions, visions and purposes develop and become
more concrete based on our actions. They are not the universal
starting point for strategy.
Reason 3: Strategy doesn’t start or stop

The idea that strategy should start with any form of pre-defined
goals presumes that there are start and end points in the first place.
Seeing strategy as an organization’s way of achieving pre-defined
goals, makes strategy an event-like phenomenon. But
organizations—and therefore strategy as well—are continuous.
There is no start, stop or reset every three years. They just
continue, either on the same path as before or on an incrementally
or more radically adjusted path. Along those lines, it is not obvious
that formulating compelling goals upfront is useful.
Reason 4: Goals direct attention away from reality

Putting a lot of emphasis on goals means putting a lot of emphasis
on the ideal—on a fictitious desired future state. While that may
be inspirational and motivational for employees, and while that
may be comforting to focus on, it also draws attention away from
the actual tensions, frictions, barriers or other types of problems
that are hindering an organization’s survival and prosperity today.
And maybe solving these is strategically more important and
urgent for an organization than achieving some high-level goal.
Reason 5: Goals are not what matters most

One can wonder why the goals of the founder, the CEO, the
board, or the organization at large would be more important than
everything else. Assuming this is the case is, in essence, an
egocentric starting point. Why, for example, would goals like
being market leader, a 10% increase in profit, doubling in size or

Steve Job’s “putting a ding in the universe” really matter? They
merely reflect the formulator’s wish to achieve something. More
importantly, it seems to me, is the question of the value an
organization creates, for whom, and how. While that could of
course be turned into an attractive goal as well, it is not the goal
that is the starting point here, but what the organization can mean
for others.
What Then?
None of the above means that goals are not important. They are
important, for without some sort of goal, there is no intentional
progress. The myth that I aim to break here though, is that goals
should be the all-encompassing universal starting point for
strategy. As the arguments above indicate, we can seriously
question this idea from a philosophical, instrumental, and
normative perspective.
But if not goals, what then? The starting point, I think, is
realizing that goals are as evolutionary as everything else. In his
book Reinventing Organizations, Frederic Laloux uses the concept of
“evolutionary purpose” to capture this idea. It means abstaining
from the urge to define and specify goals upfront, and rather, let
them emerge in and by the organization while moving forward.
Also, Freedman, in his treatise Strategy: A History that I already
referred to earlier, offers a useful insight. As he suggests, strategy
should be guided by a “reappraisal of original strategy” which is
“governed by the starting point, not the end point.” Along those
lines, he argues, strategy is about thinking about actions in
advance in the light of goals and capacities. So, goals are important,
but so are your current strategy and capabilities. And the ultimate
focus is on actions, not on intentions.
4
“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory.

Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
— Sun Tzu
“The helicopter is a fine way to travel, but it induces a view of the world that
only God and CEOs share on a regular basis.”
— Morley Safer
The Myth
Because strategy concerns an organization’s overarching
direction, and should encompass and guide what is going on in
the entire organization, the idea is that it should be formulated in
a rather general, abstract, and high-level form. The best strategy
takes a helicopter view and looks at the whole picture rather than
at details.
Details are of course important, but they are not part of

strategy, so the idea goes. Strategy needs to be high-level, because
this gives other people lower in the organization the opportunity
to translate the strategy to their specific context. This is needed
because contexts differ. Furthermore, giving people this freedom
to translate the strategy makes them more engaged.
As soon as strategy becomes too concrete and detailed, it is
not strategic anymore. Then we call it “tactical” or “operational.”
So, by definition, strategy must be high-level.
Why it is Wrong
At first sight, it seems to make sense to argue that strategy, by
definition, should be high-level. In the end, the core of strategy
that makes it different from everything else in the organization is
that it is overarching and integrative. And this means it cannot be
about all the nitty-gritty details. But there are several reasons why
this way of thinking does not really hold.
Reason 1: It mystifies strategy

Strategy is highly mystified. No-one really knows what it is, but
we all believe it is important—and we all have our own views
about what it should be. Strategy is generated in impressive and
usually closed boardrooms by people wearing expensive suits,
supported by expensive consultants. Keeping strategy abstract
helps to maintain this mystification. While some people might
benefit from that, mystification isn’t good for an organization. It
works very well in movies and books, but not in organizations that
want actually to get things done.
Reason 2: It skirts accountability

Keeping strategy high-level is comfortable. If things aren’t very
clear, no-one can really be held accountable if things don’t work
out as they should. Even stronger, keeping strategy abstract and
Myth #4: Strategy Should Be High-Level 21
general makes that it can be interpreted in a very flexible way. This

allows people to get away with smart excuses or intelligent
reasoning why a strategy has been successfully executed, if things
are actually going badly, or even terribly. If it is not clear what the
strategy was in the first place, no-one can be held accountable.
Reason 3: The devil is in the detail

As with virtually everything else, also in strategy the devil is in the
detail. Arguing that your strategy for the next years is “operational
excellence,” “product leadership,” or “customer intimacy,” for
example—to borrow Treacy and Wiersema’s nowadays
commonly used language—hardly says anything. It just means you
divide the world of strategy into three parts and pick one of them.
Your real strategy, however, is inside these words, in how exactly
you are going to be operationally excellent, a product leader or
customer intimate in a way that is distinct from your competitors.
This means your strategy is primarily in the concrete details, not
in the high-level name you give it.
Reason 4: It focuses on the wrong level

There is this idea that the higher up in the organization, the more
important things are. Along these lines, corporate-level strategy is
assumed to be more important than business level or even lower
levels of strategy. But this is not true. If you think about where in
an organization the actual game of business is played, it is at the
level of an organization’s offerings—its products and services—
for specific markets and regions. This is where the customers are,
where the competition is, where the money is made, where most
resources are spent, and so on and so forth. And this is the level
where strategy matters most, and needs to be highly concrete and
detailed. Higher levels of abstraction higher up in the organization
are nice, but they are of secondary importance.
Reason 5: It doesn’t work

The idea that the rest of the organization can translate a rather
vague strategy to their own specific context is largely a myth. It
sometimes works, but in most organizations that I have seen, it
doesn’t. It just leads to confusion, political games, and a strategy
not being executed. Of course, some translation is needed and
useful, but for this to work, it needs at least to be clear what it is
that has to be translated. And this requires a still rather concrete
and detailed version of strategy to start with.
What Then?
The alternative to high-level abstract strategy is not a meticulously
described organization-wide strategy. We know already for a long
time that trying to formulate all-encompassing detailed strategic
plans does not work. They are too rigid, too complex, and
outdated before they are created.
But strategy can be very concrete at the level of an
organization’s offerings—its product-market combinations. At
that level, you can identify quite precisely what your products and
services are, and what value they create for whom. And you can
also specify which resources and competencies you need for that,
what your supply chain needs to look like, how much and how
you will charge for the value you offer, and so on and so forth.
So, the key to demystifying strategy and making it concrete
enough to be actionable, is to formulate it primarily at the level of
offerings and business units rather than at the level of entire
corporations.
5
“If you’re not confused, you’re not paying attention.”

― Tom Peters
“If our brains were simple enough for us to understand them,

we’d be so simple that we couldn’t.”
― Ian Stewart
The Myth
To be effective, strategy needs to be simple, so the idea goes. After
all, if we can’t formulate a strategy in one or a few sentences, it is
too complex for people to understand and remember. Therefore,
any strategy needs to be crisp enough to express in one or a few
strong and inspirational statements.
Not only does the formulated strategy need to be simple, but

also the way we generate it. We need simple frameworks and
typologies that help us make sense of the world in a simple and
easy way. Particularly two-by-two matrices like the SWOT and the
BCG matrix are useful, because they effectively divide the world
into four boxes that are easy to understand.
The need for simple strategies was always there, but, so the
idea continues, it is even more pressing in today’s complex world.
As some argue, yesterday’s world was simple enough to have
complex strategies, but today’s world is so complex that our
strategies need to be very simple and swift.
Why it is Wrong
Like with the previous myths, it all sounds intuitive and sensible.
We like to make things simple, and we certainly like it when people
tell us that simplification is what is needed. This is comforting.
And of course, simplification is always needed. There is no way
round it. But, the extreme level at which simplicity is promoted in
strategy is a problem. The following five reasons explain why.
Reason 1: We confuse title with content

The title of a book is not the same as its content. The title is the
shortest possible summary of the book. But it is not the book. Of
course, we know this, but in strategy we seem to forget it. Yes, it
may be useful to have a nice-sounding name for your strategy, or
summary, or payoff, tagline, slogan, mantra, or whatever you call
it, but this is not the strategy itself. Like the content of a book, a
good strategy is much more sophisticated and complex than its
mere title or summary suggests.
Reason 2: Strategy is not two-dimensional

Trying to simplify strategy with simple frameworks such as two-
by-two matrices is a grave oversimplification of what strategy is
Myth #5: Strategy Should Be Simple 25
about. Because it connects everything in an organization to

everything else and to the environment, strategy is one of the most
complex topics in business. Therefore, it is rather absurd to think
that, while we have highly advanced methods, tools and
technologies for just about every other aspect of business, strategy
can be made with such simple tools.
Reason 3: It promotes sloppy thinking

The whole idea that strategy should be simple and that the way to
get there is through simple models and approaches, promotes
sloppy thinking. Strategy is one of the most polluted fields when
it concerns the flourishing of nice-sounding, but not supported
ideas and concepts. Whether it is Generic strategies, Blue Ocean
strategy, or the Golden Circle model, the core message is that
strategy can and needs to be simple. This is comforting, but it
draws the attention away from the nitty-gritty, hard and intelligent
work of actually identifying and realizing a value-creating strategy
that helps organizations survive and thrive.
Reason 4: It is based on smart rhetoric

We buy the simplistic ideas about strategy for the same reason as
we buy stuff based on advertisements: we let ourselves be
convinced by smart rhetoric that plays the subconscious part of
our brain. Simon Sinek (the man behind the Golden Circle) is a
master in this. His rhetorical skills are great. When you read his
book, or watch his talks carefully, you can see how he uses smart
rhetorical tricks that make it hard not to be enthusiastic about his
ideas. They sound appealing and intuitive, and they trigger the
things that we want to believe and that resonate. But this doesn’t
necessarily make them true or useful.
Reason 5: Inspiration doesn’t equal effectiveness

Strategy is a field driven by what is “inspiring” rather than by what
works. It seems that the main criterion for both an organization’s
strategy and the tools and concepts by which it is made, is that

they are inspiring and trigger great enthusiasm. Inspiration is great,
but it is only a tiny part of what we need. The rest is hard work. It
requires a lot of mundane activities, deep thinking and
experimentation to realize effective strategy. And while
inspiration is simple, the rest—and therefore major part—of
strategy, is not.
What Then?
Simplification is useful. We always need to simplify things to make
sense of them. But oversimplification is a problem. To quote
Albert Einstein, “Everything should be made as simple as
possible, but not simpler.” What we do in strategy, though, is
simplify things far beyond what is possible.
The conclusion that follows from breaking this myth is that
we need to start appreciating complexity again in strategy. We
need to allow strategies to be complex, and adopt and develop
more advanced strategy tools and methods that help understand
and deal with the complexity of our organizations and the world
around them.
Paraphrasing a key element of cybernetics and systems theory,
we need “requisite complexity.” This means that to be able to deal
with the complexity around us, we need to embrace a sufficient
level of complexity in our organizations, tools, and way of
thinking. Only then are we able to understand what is going on
and formulate effective responses. In other words, we need
complexity to beat complexity.
6
“Strategy should evolve out of the mud of the marketplace,

not in the antiseptic environment of an ivory tower.”
— Al Ries
“No one can whistle a symphony. It takes a whole orchestra to play it.”
— Halford E. Luccock
The Myth
As referred to in Myth #1, “Strategy Is About Warfare,” the term
strategy means something like “the art of the general.” This
suggests that strategy is the stuff that concerns the people highest
in rank. Accordingly, many definitions of strategy suggest that
strategy is “that which top management does” (Steiner in Strategic
Planning). A study by Nag, Hambrick and Chen in Strategic
Management Journal (2007), reveals that every third definition of

strategy contains such reference to top-level executives like
CEOs, executives, leaders, senior management, and top
management teams.
The idea is that the people at the top of the organization are
responsible for setting out the strategy, which is then supposed to
trickle down and be translated to lower levels in the organization
where it is executed. This works, because those at the top have
overview and oversight and can therefore set out the general
directions for the organization. And the rest of the organization is
responsible for the details and execution of the strategy.
Why it is Wrong
Like with many myths, there is some truth in this idea. It makes
sense that people are overseeing the organization, and that some
people have a greater say than others in where the organization is
heading. And it makes sense that this is top management. But the
idea that strategy is something exclusively or even primarily for
the top is wrong for a variety of reasons.
Reason 1: Strategy generation and execution go together

This myth is based on the idea that strategy formation and
implementation can be separated over time and in the
organization. Formation happens first, and at the top, and
implementation comes after that and by the rest of the
organization. But this doesn’t work. It didn’t work in the past, and
it certainly doesn’t work today in this volatile, uncertain, complex
and ambiguous (VUCA) world. I would even argue that this very
separation is the single most important cause of the high failure
rates in strategy. The two need to be in constant interaction so
that a virtuous cycle emerges in which ideas and actions
continuously feed each other.
Myth #6: Strategy Resides at the Top 29
Reason 2: The master strategist hardly exists

We are fond of heroes—people to look up to with remarkable
skills far beyond our own. But the fact is, that these people are
extremely rare in strategy, as they are elsewhere. Freedman calls
this the “Myth of the Master Strategist.” Most executives aren’t
the know-it-all visionary leaders we expect them to be. On the
contrary, they often don’t know it either. And the fact that we do
expect it from them is bad for us as well as for them. We are
disappointed because they don’t live up to our expectations, and
they feel pressured and anxious because we expect too much from
them.
Reason 3: Intelligence and ideas don’t correlate with rank

To be a master strategist, one needs great intelligence and great
ideas—so the myth goes. So, the idea is that the people at the top
are better endorsed with intelligence and ideas than others in the
organization. But there is no evidence for this whatsoever. No
research shows that intelligence and ideas correlate with rank. Of
course, not everyone has the same level of intelligence and ideas.
Still, in any organization, there may be numerous people who are
smarter and have better strategy ideas than those at the top.
Reason 4: Networks and groups beat individuals

When engaged in the right way, groups of people make better
analyses and better decisions than individuals. This applies to
teams and organizations, as well as large crowds. Not
acknowledging this can lead to what Alvesson and Spicer have
called “The Stupidity Paradox”—the fact that organizations can
act in a much more stupid way than individuals. When properly
engaged though, groups are much smarter than individuals. Not
using this insight in strategy seems like an extreme missed
potential, to me.
Reason 5: Things are too complex to leave to the top

Both our organizations and the world we operate in are
increasingly complex. The level of complexity is far beyond what
the top of any organization can grasp and deal with. Things are
simply too complex to be understood by those few at the top.
Assuming that they can is a myth. To survive and prosper in the
highly competitive markets that most organizations are in, they
need to have everyone on board. Not just for creating and
delivering products and services, but also for generating and
executing strategy. In a world that is so complex, organizations
can no longer afford to leave something so important as strategy
to just the top.
What Then?
Of course, many organizations already realize that strategy is not
just a top management activity. They involve middle management,
consult others in the organization, and follow a more participative
approach than the traditional trickle-down approach. Yet, the
primary assumption is still that it is top management that is
principally responsible for strategy generation.
But what if we completely abandon this idea and assume that
strategy is everyone’s job? This may sound rather bizarre at first
sight, but I think the current alternative is even more bizarre. The
current idea that top management is responsible for strategy
suggests that the more important a topic is (assuming we find
strategy very important…), the fewer people that should decide
about it (just the board). In that light, I’d say that making strategy
part of everyone’s job is far less bizarre.
Explaining how to engage people throughout the organization
goes beyond the scope of this short chapter. But to see how this
could work, it is useful to have a look at quality management and
its various varieties: Total Quality Management, Continuous
Improvement, Lean, Six Sigma, etc. One of the core elements of
Myth #6: Strategy Resides at the Top 31
all these approaches is that everyone in the organization is

responsible for quality. Not just a staff department. Everyone, and
from their own perspective. The same can work for strategy as
well. Think about it.
7
Myth #7: Strategy Can Be Made
by Consultants
“Any chief executive who hires a consultant to give them strategy

should be fired.”
— Henry Mintzberg
“Don’t be buffaloed by experts and elites.

Experts often possess more data than judgment.”
— Colin Powell
The Myth
Strategy is one of those areas where consultancies flourish.
Influential companies such as McKinsey, Bain & Company, and
the Boston Consulting Group, thrive to a large extent by helping
their clients through analyzing, assessing, designing, formulating,
translating, implementing, and monitoring their strategy. They are

hired because organizations can’t create strategy on their own, and
benefit from the specialized expertise of consulting firms.
The reason this works, so the idea goes, is that by going from
client to client, consulting firms build deep and broad experience
with strategy-making that no single organization can build alone.
Because organizations only engage in strategy-making every now
and then, they better use the expertise of consulting firms to help
them. Furthermore, exactly because the consulting firms are
experts in strategy, hiring them makes any new strategy more
credible too.
Why it is Wrong
There is no doubt that it is useful to occasionally invite an external
party to have a look at what you and your organization are doing.
They can bring a fresh perspective, point you at your implicit
assumptions, guide you through the strategy process, and even
bring in some new ideas. Being a strategy consultant myself, I
would be a hypocrite if I argued differently. However, this doesn’t
mean strategy can or should be outsourced to consultants at the
levels at which it is currently done, or that consultants should be
the ones coming up with the strategy. There are at least five
reasons why this idea is a myth.
Reason 1: Consultants don’t know enough

Next to knowledge about strategy-making itself, strategy requires
two types of very specific knowledge—about your organization,
and about your external environment. This requires deep
experience in your particular line of business and knowing all the
important details about how your organization works.
Consultancies don’t have this. They know something (and
sometimes a lot) about strategy and about general industry trends,
but they don’t know the specifics. Only you and your organization
Myth #7: Strategy Can Be Made by Consultants 35
do. This means that consultants could help you ask the relevant
questions and guide you through the process—and occasionally
they may even have good ideas—but they don’t have the answers.
Reason 2: Strategy is too important to outsource

As research and conventional wisdom tell us, organizations
should only outsource those activities that aren’t core to their
business. This is the basic idea of “resource-based view” and “core
competence approach” that have gained a lot of traction,
especially in academia, and we also know this from outsourcing
and offshoring. Following this line of reasoning, if there is any
competence that is core to an organization, it is strategy.
Especially in today’s VUCA world, specific competencies related
to an organization’s products and services erode quickly. This
makes the ability to strategize—to redirect, adapt, focus, align,
etc.—probably the single most important competence that
organizations need. In this light, outsourcing strategy-making, or
depending significantly on others for it, seems pretty absurd.
Reason 3: It limits leaders’ responsibility and accountability

It is very tempting to outsource strategy to consulting firms,
because it means you can hide behind them, and make them the
scapegoat of unpopular or wrong decisions. Of course, they will
make sure that in the end it is you who decides (otherwise they
could be held accountable for their advice and they certainly don’t
want that…). But, consultancies are also hired to create credibility,
and have someone to point at and say, “McKinsey said it, so it
must be true.” While this could help to give a new strategy or
decision some extra weight and credibility, it also means that
leaders are shifting the responsibility to others. But what is the
point of leaders if they are not responsible and accountable for an
organization’s strategy?
Reason 4: Strategy is inseparable from the organization

The idea that strategy can be left largely to people outside an
organization rests on the assumption that strategy is something
different than what the organization “normally” does, and that
can be disconnected from the rest. That may have been the case
with the traditional waterfall approach to strategic planning, and
in a situation where strategy is something for top management
alone. But it is no longer the case when the separation between
strategy generation and execution over time and in the
organization dissolves. When strategy is an inherent part of what
people in the organization are doing, and when strategy generation
and execution are inextricably linked, strategy cannot be
outsourced.
Reason 5: Best practices from elsewhere don’t work

Consulting companies’ original reason for existence was that they
transferred practices learned in one organization to another
organization. Accordingly, by building experience with strategy
across organizations and industries, consulting firms could
become strategy specialists and bring best practices to a wide
range of companies. Today, however, organizations are so
specific, dynamic and different, that this idea of shifting best
practices doesn’t really work anymore. Every organization
requires a tailored strategy that works for them, in their specific
context and at this specific time. Consulting firms can help in
creating such strategies, but the strategies need to come from the
organizations themselves.
What Then?
As already referred to above, there certainly is a role for
consultancies in facilitating and helping companies generate and
execute strategy. That is my own job too, and I would like to think
that what I do is relevant. But what the above means, is that
Myth #7: Strategy Can Be Made by Consultants 37
strategy needs to be much more a core competence of

organizations themselves than it is today. Rather than putting your
strategy-making efforts in the hands of external people, the core
part of strategizing needs to be done by the organization itself.
You should be in the lead, not they—or, for that matter, I.
For many organizations, this will imply quite a shift. It means
building an organization-level strategy competence that is
mastered by the people within your organization. It means
creating adaptive organization-wide strategic processes that
enable people of various levels and roles to contribute. It means
training your people—and perhaps yourself too—to think
strategically in everything they do. And above all, it means taking
ownership of strategy rather than leaving it to others.
8
“I never get the accountants in before I start up a business.

It’s done on gut feeling, especially if I can see that
they are taking the mickey out of the consumer.”
— Richard Branson
“Torture the data, and it will confess to anything.”

— Ronald Coase
The Myth
The widely spread traditional strategy approach, as we know it,
relies strongly on gathering and analyzing data. With the help of
frameworks like Porter’s Five Forces Framework, and the
PESTEL analysis, we are supposed to gather extensive data about
the opportunities and threats in our market. Along these same
lines, we are supposed to gather information about the internal

strengths and weaknesses of our organization. And, based on
these analyses, we then create a SWOT matrix, showing us the
strategic options from which we can choose.
With the growing popularity of big data, data analytics, and
artificial intelligence, we see a revival of data-driven approaches to
strategy, today. Many consulting firms, for example, talk about
things like “big data strategy,” “evidence-based strategy,” and
“data-driven strategy.” With the technological advancements of
today, so the idea goes, we can gather and analyze more data and
thereby make better and more accurate strategies than ever before.
Why it is Wrong
Of course, data is important. Without data, any strategy would be
pure fantasy. Fun perhaps, but not necessarily useful for real
organizations. However, there are at least five reasons why data is
less important to strategy than is often assumed.
Reason 1: Strategy is about the future, data about the past

By definition, data is about the past. Based on trend analysis and
extrapolation, we might be able to project developments for the
future. But the data itself is about the past—or at best, about the
present if it is real-time. This means that data can be useful in
stable and predictable industries and if your strategy is to continue
along the same lines as you already do. But, as soon as you want
to make any significant change, do something new and innovative,
or create a new industry, the relevance of data quickly evaporates.
After all, what data to use if you are entering unexplored territory?
Reason 2: Strategy requires judgment and interpretation

Two people facing the same piece of data can draw diametrically
opposed conclusions. Facing the fact that everyone wears sandals
in the desert, I might conclude there is no market for shoes
Myth #8: Strategy Derives from Data 41
because no-one wears shoes. You, on the other hand, might

conclude there is a huge market for shoes, because no-one wears
shoes. This simple example shows that, next to the data, it is at
least as important what you and I see in this data, and how we
interpret and judge it. Opportunity—as well as threat—lies in the
eye of the beholder, not in the data.
Reason 3: Strategy is created, not found

The idea that strategy can be derived from data and analysis,
suggests that strategy is already present, laying there and waiting
to be found by discovering the right patterns. But that is not where
strategy comes from. Sure, it might be informed by data, but an
actual strategy is created, designed by people. In the process of
generating strategy, people add their imagination and creativity.
The more original and innovative a strategy is, the more it will be
based on imagination, gut feeling and creativity, and the less it can
rely on data.
Reason 4: Strategy is about what should be

Strategy isn’t just a summation of trends or a deductive analytical
exercise—and even adding creativity and imagination to that isn’t
enough. Because strategy says something about the way we think
things should be, and this normative aspect of strategy can never
be derived from data. No matter how hard we try, there is no way
of objectively preferring one strategy above the other. There are
always our own normative frameworks at play that make us prefer
one strategy over the other. This means that, at its heart,
formulating strategy is a very normative thing to do because it
involves describing an ideal, desired future state based on our own
ideas about what is preferred and what is not. Data cannot provide
us that.
Reason 5: Strategy is social, data not

Strategy-making is an inherently social process. Organizations
don’t only need strategy that looks good—they need strategy that
people commit to and are willing to execute. This means that
people need to feel it is their strategy, a strategy to which they
want to commit. Even when data analysis would lead to a perfect
strategy in theory, a less perfect strategy that reflects how your
people think is preferred, because the chances of successful
execution will be significantly higher. After all, a great strategy is
one that people can and will execute, not one that is just great on
paper.
What Then?
Ignoring relevant data is foolish. But over-depending on data is
foolish too—even if the data is relevant. As the five reasons above
show, strategy is not just a cold, deductive, rational, analytical
process. It involves people, their imagination and creativity, their
norms and values, and their ability and willingness to execute. This
makes data far less important than is often assumed.
The approach to strategy that follows from this, is a
participative one in which there is a substantial role for people’s
subjective, intuitive, and creative contributions as well as their
thoughts about what is right and wrong. Collaborative
sensemaking plays a crucial role in such an approach. It means
that people together create an understanding of what the current
strategy is, what it might be, what it should be, and what it will be.
Can you picture an approach like that?
9
“The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,

it is the illusion of knowledge.”
— Daniel J. Boorstin
“Small minds are concerned with the extraordinary,

great minds with the ordinary.”
— Blaise Pascal
The Myth
There has emerged a rather standardized ritual for making strategy
that is used throughout the world. When I describe it to executive
MBA students, I often get instant and close to unanimous
recognition, including a half-smile that tells me they are a bit
embarrassed that that is, indeed, how their company also does
strategy.
It goes like this. Once every year, the key leaders of the
company go to a nice hotel or resort for a day or so. During that
day, they do some serious work in the morning. Facilitated by a
consultant, they do one or more brown paper sessions organized
around a SWOT analysis or—for a couple of years—a “business
model canvas.” And in the afternoon, or the next day if it is a
multi-day offsite, they do a team-building exercise to bond and
have fun together. Afterward, everyone goes home full of energy
and optimism. The next day, everyone goes back to work and
forgets about the offsite until next year’s offsite comes around.
Of course, there are numerous variations, and of course this
description is rather a caricature—but in many cases, it is not far
off from how things actually go. So, the myth is that strategy can,
or even should, be made during occasional offsites of a day or
two. It should be offsite at a nice place away from the office
because that takes people out of the ordinary and thereby
stimulates creativity and focus.
Why it is Wrong
The idea that strategy can be effectively made in this way is
attractive. It makes strategy-making a fun and contained activity
that doesn’t interfere with business as usual. But there are five
reasons why this is a myth.
Reason 1: It disconnects strategy from everyday business

What is often seen as one of the key strengths of strategy
offsites—the fact that they are held offsite, away from the
organization’s premises—is actually one of their key weaknesses.
It literally disconnects strategy from normal business and thereby
makes strategy something special, something extraordinary. But
often, strategy is already strongly hindered by not being connected
enough to organizations’ daily operations. Offsites just make this
Myth #9: Strategy Requires Offsites 45
worse. Therefore, I am a strong proponent to do everything

onsite. Of course, with rules so that people are actually present
and focused, but you need those rules anyway, also offsite.
Reason 2: Not everyone can be there

Having offsites like this creates an artificial divide between those
who are there (the elite) and those who are not (the rest). As
argued before, strategy concerns everyone in the organization. By
literally taking one group of people elsewhere to discuss strategy,
the aforementioned divide is just enlarged. This is especially the
case, as often happens, when the in-group is instructed not to talk
about what has been said during the offsite because no formal
decisions have yet been made. This stimulates rumor, speculation
and gossip rather than effective dialogue.
Reason 3: It is based on an illusion of knowledge

When you think about it, it is pretty absurd to assume that strategy
can be effectively made in one or a few days by a select group of
people sitting in a room. Strategy is among the most complex
topics in an organization. The oversimplification problem referred
to earlier is just kept alive by pretending that one or more offsites
would be enough to generate strategy. Effective strategy-making,
however, requires constant interaction with the outside world—
to listen and see, as well as to experiment and learn.
Reason 4: Good ideas don’t just pop up

Offsites are based on the idea that the best ideas come from short
brainstorms and pressure-cooker workshops. Sure, those can be
inspiring and fun, but the best ideas usually don’t come up like
that. They can’t be timed to pop up exactly during an offsite. They
gradually build up over time and with experience. They emerge as
a side effect of people’s day-to-day work. Especially short breaks
after periods of hard work are typical moments when the best
ideas pop up in our conscious brain after having cooked for a
while in our subconscious. Offsites don’t provide the right

context for that. And even if great ideas are produced during the
offsite, it requires again time to process, amend and enhance the
ideas into something that can really work.
Reason 5: Strategy is a continuous process, not an event

Offsites suggest that strategy-making is an event, something that
happens every now and then, that has a clear beginning and end.
While we might have made ourselves believe this is the case,
strategy is not like that at all. It is a continuous process that goes
on 365 days a year. After all, organizations and the world move
on continuously as well. Making sure that your strategy is up-to-
date on an ongoing basis, as well as executed effectively, requires
a continuous approach to strategy. Offsites don’t provide that.
What Then?
There is nothing against having meetings with groups of people
to talk about strategy. In whatever way strategy is made, that way
of working has its value, and practically it is the way strategy-
making will take shape anyway. After all, strategy is a people
process that requires people to interact, and when a group of
people interacts at the same time, we call this a meeting. But, as
the five reasons above indicate, that doesn’t mean this should
happen during isolated and occasional offsites.
From these reasons, as well as the reasons for the eight
previous myths above, the alternative approach to strategy slowly
comes to the surface. In this alternative approach, strategy is a
continuous process involving people throughout the organization.
Rather than being something special, strategy is part of everyone’s
day-day-to activities.
10
“However beautiful the strategy,

you should occasionally look at the results.”
— Sir Winston Churchill
“Building a visionary company requires one percent vision

and 99 percent alignment.”
— Jim Collins and Jerry Porras
The Myth
There is a widely accepted idea that, to function properly, every
organization needs a strategy that is written down and
communicated to its employees and the outside world. This
strategy should be based on thorough analysis, and formulated
comprehensively and carefully so that it is clear what the
organization’s strategy is going to be for the next couple of years.
More often than not, this means writing the strategy down in
a thick, impressive report with lots of figures and numbers. This
report contains all the evidence behind the strategy, and should
convince readers that this is the right strategy.
Next to that, it is recommended to formulate a concise
mission and vision statement as well, so that there is an easy-to-
remember phrase that everyone in the organization can refer to.
Why it is Wrong
Of course, writing down a strategy has its purpose. It can help
sharpen a strategy, inspire people, give direction to what the
organization does, and create coherence and a shared
understanding. But, the idea that strategy should always be
formulated—or should be formulated at all—is wrong for a
variety of reasons.
Reason 1: Formulating a strategy freezes it

Once a strategy is formulated, it remains relatively fixed for the
period it was formulated for—unless it is reformulated. While this
may have been useful in the past, in this VUCA world, it often
means that a strategy is outdated once, or even before it is
formulated. It also means that interesting opportunities and
promising new directions might be ignored because they fall
outside the formulated strategy. The more time and energy that
have been invested in formulating the strategy, the more static and
rigid it will be in practice.
Reason 2: It draws attention away from what really matters

A formulated strategy itself doesn’t get your organization
anywhere. It is insights, decisions and actions that drive
organizations and bring them to the next level. This means that
every minute and money spent on formulating and perfecting a
strategy, is one not spent on the things that make organizations
Myth #10: Strategy Should Be Formulated 49
really tick: insights, decisions, and actions. So, the opportunity

costs and inactivity that come with an overemphasis on strategy
formulation are substantial. “Death by strategy formulation” may
be the result.
Reason 3: The ideal might not be the best starting point

Formulating a strategy makes an organization focus on some kind
of ideal desired future state that it wants to achieve. That may be
useful for motivational and inspirational reasons—however, it
draws attention away from something else that also matters
greatly: the present. Rather than being concerned about an ideal
future state, strategy could perhaps better be oriented toward
solving problems, frictions, and misalignment in an organization’s
factual strategy as it is lived and realized today—and on building
upon and enhancing an organization’s current capabilities and
strengths. The advantage of such focus on the present is that it
doesn’t require speculation and believing, but instead takes the
current reality as it is experienced, as a starting point.
Reason 4: Process matters more than content

Putting a lot of emphasis on formulating a strategy means putting
a lot of emphasis on content, on the strategy itself and what it
should be. This matters, of course, but what matters even more is
the strategy process. To be successful, particularly in this VUCA
world, an organization needs a strong and adaptive strategy
process that makes sure it is doing the right things continuously.
And this process involves far more than just formulating a
strategy. Its primary focus needs to be on execution—on getting
things done and making sure the organization’s strategy is up-to-
date on an ongoing basis.
Reason 5: Other processes can do without formulation

While it is an accepted belief that strategy needs to be formulated,
other key business processes can do without such formulation.
Most notably, Total Quality Management, Lean, Six Sigma, and

other processes focused on continuous improvement don’t
require a formulated future state. While strategy has a different
orientation—value creation rather than efficiency or quality—
there is no evident reason why strategy cannot do without
formulation as well. This may seem hard to accept at first sight,
but think about it. Do you really need a formulated strategy to
know how to do better than today?
What Then?
The approach to strategy that follows from breaking this 10th
myth, can be summarized by paraphrasing Dwight D. Eisenhower
once more. As already referred to in Myth #2, “Strategy Equals
Planning.” Eisenhower was in favor of planning but less so of
plans. Accordingly, the conclusion that follows from the above
can be paraphrased as follows: “Strategies are nothing; strategizing
is everything.”
When we take this statement seriously, this means abandoning
the whole noun “strategy” altogether. Rather than focusing on the
formulation and execution of “a” strategy, organizations then
should engage in a continuous strategizing process focused on
looking forwards, by solving misalignments and frictions in
today’s factual strategy and building upon its strengths—on the
strategy the organization actually executes rather than an idealized
formulated one.
This implies a strategy process that aims at generating strategic
insights, decisions and actions, that facilitates prioritizing them so
that the three to five most important ones are selected, and that is
putting most weight on executing them—and then moves on to
generating the next set of key insights, decisions and actions.
And now?
“Simply pushing harder within the old boundaries will not do.”
— Karl E. Weick
“Master your instrument. Master the music.

And then forget all that bullshit and just play.”
— Charlie Parker
Conclusion
I started this little book with the statement that strategy is a mess
that is heavily criticized both from within and outside. I proceeded
by arguing that this mess is largely the result of clinging strongly
to a set of misbeliefs—myths—about the nature of strategy.
These myths are largely based on early 20th century ideas about
organizations and strategy. Throughout the past ten chapters, I
have reviewed these myths and argued why they are largely wrong.
Here they are once more:
Myth #1: Strategy Is about Warfare

Myth #3: Strategy Starts with Goals

Myth #7: Strategy Can Be Made by Consultants
In describing these myths, I have exaggerated to make a point. In

practice, I believe (and certainly hope) that no-one on this planet
is 100% convinced that they are 100% true. But still, they are not
too far off either as a basis for the traditional approach to strategy
that has become, and still is dominant in textbooks and teaching.
And of course, these myths are not entirely wrong. In every
myth—about strategy or about anything else—there is some
truth. There is always some core idea that makes some sense. And
that applies to these strategy myths as well. The problem though,
is that we have forgotten they are myths, and we have started to
treat them as the one and only and true way to look at strategy.
To make progress in strategy, we need to unlearn these myths.
This is not easy. They are widely spread, sound quite intuitive and
appealing, and they have persisted for decades already. Just a quick
read of the previous pages is not enough. It requires repeatedly
reminding ourselves of the fact that they are myths. And then we
must actively unlearn them, and replace them with more
productive views on what strategy is, and what it should be like in
the 21st century.
This little book is certainly not the place for a complete answer
and alternative approach. However, in every chapter, you have
seen snippets of thoughts about what strategy should look like in
the “What Then?” sections. To take most from this book, I
recommend going slowly through the past chapters again, one by
one, let them sink in and, based on that, form your own answer
to the question of what strategy should look like.
And Now? 53
Turning Strategy from Opera into Jazz

Instead of summarizing or repeating my viewpoints, I want to
close this book with a metaphor.
If you think about the way that strategy has been taught and
practiced over the past decades, opera is quite an accurate
metaphor. Like opera, traditional strategy is about preparation,
planning and perfection, and is rather an elitist thing with
grandeur being strived for. And its looks are at least as important
as the performance.
Don’t take me wrong. Opera can be beautiful. But maybe it is
not the best metaphor of what strategy needs to be like in today’s
VUCA world. Along the lines of breaking the ten myths, jazz may
be a much better metaphor. Not just as an inspirational metaphor,
but as an effective description of what strategy-making could or
even should be like—a way of playing together and producing
new and unexpected outcomes.
To see the striking similarities between opera and strategy as
we know it, and to see how strategy could be different when it
would be more like jazz, it is useful to make a brief comparison of
opera and jazz. It doesn’t matter whether you like or dislike these
types of music—I only appreciate very specific instances of both.
The point is not whether you like it, but to use them as a
metaphor.
There are of course similarities. Both opera and jazz are
performed by highly skilled musicians who have spent their lives
practicing and perfecting their playing skills. Both depend on
careful listening and harmoniously playing together. In both, there
are soloists. In both, the total is more important than the
individual player. And in both, there is room for interpretation.
But there are major differences as well, and if we want to learn
how to turn strategy from opera into jazz, these are more
interesting. The following table, therefore, contains some of the
most striking differences.
Opera Jazz
Preparation Long and planned Short and unplanned
Atmosphere Grand and serious Down-to-earth and fun
Leadership Top-down by the Rotating, by the soloist
conductor at the moment
Team Large orchestra and Small combo
choir
Desired Predictable and Surprising and edgy
outcome perfect
Structure Sheet music and Basic chords and
provided by conductor rhythms
Degree of Once agreed, hardly A lot, as long as
freedom any communicated
Music Beforehand, during In the moment, on stage
originates practice
Way of Playing a particular Improvising based
performing piece on agreed-upon schemes
Obviously, both opera and jazz are stereotyped here. But, as the
table shows, there are vast differences. And those differences
really make a difference in how to play, how to develop as a
musician, and what makes both types of music work.
Strategy, as we know it from the myths, is clearly more of the
opera type. One glance at the table shows this. Traditional strategy
is all about thorough preparation and planning, mostly top-down,
organization-wide, and oriented toward achieving a particular pre-
defined goal.
If we read the textbooks and follow what is recommended, it
seems as if this is the only way we could think of strategy. But as
research shows, the traditional opera-like approach seems not
particularly effective. It brings many problems, and involves very
high failure rates of up to 90%.
And Now? 55
In today’s complex world of too much, jazz seems a

particularly well-suited source of inspiration upon which to base
our approach to strategy. So, the question is, can we turn our
approach to strategy into a jazz-like approach?
I am convinced the answer is yes. A look at the table above
gives an immediate idea of what strategy looks like when based on
jazz rather than opera as a role model. Jazz-like strategy is more
down-to-earth and flexible, has less grandeur, and occurs much
more in the moment rather than based on long preparation.
There is one particular thing that is needed for jazz-like
strategy. To many listeners (me included…), jazz may seem very
loose, without structure and incomprehensible, especially modern
and improvised jazz. However, the truth is that this loose
performance and improvisation can only work because there is a
very structured, deeper set of rules underneath that serves as a
common reference. Some call this the “Jazz Code.” Experienced
jazz players know these rules, and because the rules are universal,
they can play together in a band almost instantly, without having
played together or even having seen each other ever before.
To turn strategy from opera into jazz, a similar “Strategy
Code” is needed. This would imply a structured set of rules and
principles that determine what strategy is, what it is composed of,
and how its various elements can be combined to create attractive
outcomes. Once a strategy team knows and masters this code, it
should be able to jam and improvise on the spot, and generate and
execute strategy in the moment. For most organizations, and
given the current lack of such code, this still seems a long shot.
But it can be done. So, despite that strategy is still a mess, there is
hope.
About the Author
Jeroen Kraaijenbrink (Ph.D.) is a strategy consultant, lecturer,

writer and speaker. As strategy professor and consultant, he helps
aspiring and seasoned managers, leaders and organizations across
the globe deal with the strategic challenges they face in an
uncertain, complex, and fast-changing world.
His drive is to bring strategy to the next level with new and
effective approaches and tools. Along that line, he wrote the two-
volume The Strategy Handbook—a practical and refreshing guide for
making strategy work, No More Bananas—a nine-step approach for
keeping your cool in today’s madness, and Strategy Consulting—a
whole-brain, whole-person approach to strategy consulting. He
has also written numerous articles for scientific journals and
conferences, and is an active contributor on forbes.com.
Jeroen’s most recent initiative is the creation of the online
learning platform BetterasStrategy.com. For years, Jeroen has
been helping leaders and managers to find their strategy, to get it
between their ears, and in the best possible hands—their own. On
BetterasStrategy.com Jeroen shares his knowledge, his vision on
methods by himself and others, and gives practical tips.
eLearnings, blogs, books, webinars, practical mini-courses and
remote coaching—leaders and managers will find everything they
need there to take their skills to the next level and become better.
More from Jeroen Kraaijenbrink
Books:
Strategy Consulting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2020)
No More Bananas: How to keep your cool in the collective madness.

Effectual Strategy Press, Doetinchem (2019)
The Strategy Handbook: A practical and refreshing guide for making

strategy work. Part 2: Strategy Execution. Effectual Strategy Press,
Doetinchem (2018)
The Strategy Handbook: A practical and refreshing guide for making

strategy work. Part 1: Strategy Generation. Effectual Strategy Press,
Doetinchem (2015)
Blogs and news articles:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeroenkraaijenbrink/
Websites:
www.jeroenkraaijenbrink.com
www.betterasstrategy.com
E
very
thi
ngyouthoughtyouknew
a
boutst
rat
egybutthati
sn’
ttrue
Theappr oachandtoolsformanagingstrat
egyhaver e-
mainedr emarkabl
yunchangedovert hepasthal
f-centur
y.
Thisisaproblem,becausetheworl
dhaschangedqui t
edra-
mat i
cal
ly.Akeyreasonforthi
slackofchangeisthatthe
str
ategyfieldhasclungtoas etofmythsaboutstrategy
thataresos t
rongandconvinci
ngthattheypersi
st,no
mat t
erwhat.
Tomakepr ogres s,andbecomebet t

eratstrategy,wemus t
uncoverandbr eakt hesemyt hs.However,becaus etheyar
e
sodeeplyingrainedint hebeli
efsystemsofmany, thisr
e-
quir
esacti
veunl earning.Onl
ywhenwear eawar eofwhat
weholdfortrue, andwhyt hisisnotvali
danymor e,canwe
st
artappreci
atingal t
ernati
veappr oachestos t
rategyand
expectt
omovef orwards.
I
nt hisli
tt
lebook,JeroenKr aaij
enbri
nktakesyoualongthe
tenmos tper
sis
tentmyt hsofs t
rat
egy.Bybreakingthes
e
myt hsinhisdown-to-earthandacces s
ibl
es t
yle,
thi
sbook
ques t
ionsyourtaken-for-
gr ant
edideasabouts t
rat
egy.
And, al
ongwithdemysti
ficat
ionoft
hemyths
,thebookal
so
sketchesanalt
ernat
iveappr
oachtost
rat
egythati
sabet
ter
fitforthe21s
tcentur
y.
Ope
nthewayfo
rbe
tters
tra
tegybyunl
ear
ning
thet
enmosti
mporta
ntstr
ateg
ymy ths
www.
j
eroenkr
aaij
enbri
nk.
com
www.
bett
eras
str
ategy.
com

Unlearning Strategy Ebook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unlearning Strategy Ebook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unl

Effectual Strategy Press

a commonly believed but false idea

a traditional story, esp. one which explains the early history

All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any

ISBN: 978-90-823443-8-7 (e-book)

Published by Effectual Strategy Press, Doetinchem, Netherlands -

Cover image: Couleur @ pixabay.com

Strategy is a mess. I mean the way of thinking about strategy that

Another indicator that strategy is a mess is that the

• Fragmented into too many tools and frameworks that, at

This is quite something, and impossible to ignore. Nevertheless,

On the one hand, we could see this as a remarkable success

Myth #1: Strategy Is about Warfare

Myth #7: Strategy Can Be Made by Consultants

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

“A wise man gets more use from his enemies

Subsequently, these books often continue discussing the

Reason 1: Words have more than one meaning

Reason 2: There is no historical continuum

Reason 3: Business is rarely about warfare

Reason 4: Organizations depend on competitors

Reason 5: Military strategy is not primarily about warfare

or generate a set of strategic options. And then, you choose your

Reason 1: Definitions change

Reason 2: Strategy originated as an alternative for planning

Reason 3: Planning is complemented by emergence

Reason 4: Prediction isn’t the only way to be in control

Reason 5: Planning works best when strategy is least needed

such more agile approaches, strategy can effectively liberate itself

“Strategy without process is little more than a wish list.”

“A goal without a timeline is just a dream.”

future state that the organization aims to realize. Such a clear

Reason 1: Goals depend on what we think is possible

Reason 2: Human action doesn’t start with goals

spread in strategy. It has become part of our everyday way of

Reason 3: Strategy doesn’t start or stop

Reason 4: Goals direct attention away from reality

Reason 5: Goals are not what matters most

being market leader, a 10% increase in profit, doubling in size or

“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory.

Details are of course important, but they are not part of

Reason 1: It mystifies strategy

Reason 2: It skirts accountability

general makes that it can be interpreted in a very flexible way. This

Reason 3: The devil is in the detail

Reason 4: It focuses on the wrong level

Reason 5: It doesn’t work

“If you’re not confused, you’re not paying attention.”

“If our brains were simple enough for us to understand them,

Not only does the formulated strategy need to be simple, but

Reason 1: We confuse title with content

Reason 2: Strategy is not two-dimensional

about. Because it connects everything in an organization to

Reason 3: It promotes sloppy thinking

Reason 4: It is based on smart rhetoric

Reason 5: Inspiration doesn’t equal effectiveness

strategy and the tools and concepts by which it is made, is that

“Strategy should evolve out of the mud of the marketplace,

Management Journal (2007), reveals that every third definition of

Reason 1: Strategy generation and execution go together

Reason 2: The master strategist hardly exists