Why your strategy process got burned
Most strategic processes feel burned. Here's the thing, though. We're smart. But often we get so smart we forget to be specific. Cleverness replaces clarity. Rigour leads to rigidity. Not good.
We've all been there. It creeps up on you. We get so addicted to the discipline of strategy, that we forget its job. We're not there to impress people. We're there to simplify their minds. Spark their actions.
Think of it like a restaurant. Good menu. Potential's there. But when you arrive and say you've chosen, the staff stop you. Hang on. We have a model of how things get done here. We need to go through that first. Starters? Sorry.
The food finally arrives. Over-seasoned. Over-cooked. It's unclear how you eat it. Chef says it's your fault. You don't get it. Terrible restaurant. And yet, this is how a lot of strategy processes sound like. Too many.
What if it were more like street food? Faster. Tastier. Nice people. Custom options. An occasional smile, joke, or story. The difference is striking. Conversations, not performances. Shared expectations. No us vs them.
So i wonder:
Why do we treat clients like viewers, instead of co-performers?
Why do we insist on big reveals, instead of shared processes?
Why does our body language suggest we always know better?
Why does everything need a long immersion phase?
Why are slides the default for an initial conversation?
Why can't strategy be built together?
Strategy feels over-cooked. We can make it tasty again. In presentation, and preparation. Good work matters. But so do good ways of working.
