[HN Gopher] Why Most Strategies Lack Clarity
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Why Most Strategies Lack Clarity
        
       Author : jger15
       Score  : 30 points
       Date   : 2022-06-24 10:32 UTC (12 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (cutlefish.substack.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (cutlefish.substack.com)
        
       | darkerside wrote:
       | Agree it could be clearer, but I think people are too harsh on
       | the author here.
       | 
       | > The unlock, I think, is realizing that you can confidently
       | communicate a coherent strategy that also acknowledges
       | uncertainty.
       | 
       | Figuring out how to do this well is the trick.
        
       | MrYellowP wrote:
       | Post-Ed Disclaimer:
       | 
       | If your whole article was meant to serve as a prime example of
       | someone who lacks coherence, clarity and certainty, then I
       | _profoundly_ apologize, because you 've hit the nail on the head
       | with that one.
       | 
       | Here's my initial post: ----
       | 
       | This article is dumb. Period. There's no excuse.
       | 
       | What he hell is wrong with you?
       | 
       | Ignoring that it seems rather obvious that the lack of clarity
       | comes from too many people believing there's actual depth behind
       | buzzwords. I could be completely wrong, though not partly, yet
       | _definitely_ not as wrong as you are, because mine 's not based
       | on a _wild_ assumption mistaken as potentially valid conclusion,
       | but in actual reality backed up by peoples experiences.
       | 
       | Besides _that_ , your conclusion is ... superficial. Shallow.
       | Lacks depth just like buzzwords do.
       | 
       | This article/blogpost/whateveryouwishtocallit is horribly
       | written. While you _do_ take a first step into the right
       | direction towards understanding, you seem to stop at the first
       | finding that pops up, mistaking it for some important information
       | of actual value.
       | 
       | It fucking isn't. In fact, your whole article is based on
       | _nonsense_ and you 're actually insulting _yourself_ with it,
       | publicly.
       | 
       | Regardless ... I've actually read through all of it. That's
       | something I usually don't do, because it's not fucking worth it.
       | Sooo .... you've got that going for yourself, which unknowingly
       | means a lot.
       | 
       | It's also short, of course, which may or may not give us hints
       | about your attention span.
       | 
       | You have this nugget here, "They don't wake up and say "I want to
       | keep the team in a fog!"", and then you somehow magically not
       | just leap, but outright conclude:
       | 
       | "We confuse clarity/coherence and certainty."
       | 
       | This is definitely true if everyone else thinks like you, because
       | you've actually tried taking this nonsense to actually make a
       | case for it.
       | 
       | "If clarity/coherence equals certainty" ... they fucking don't.
       | 
       | clarity does not equal coherence, coherence does not equal
       | certainty, certainty does not equal clarity.
       | 
       |  _You can not, in fact, even just understand the problem, as long
       | as you are oblivious to the actual definitions and meaning of
       | significant words._
       | 
       | "If clarity/coherence equals certainty, and a strategy is
       | supposed to be clear and coherent, then unless we are certain, we
       | can't have a strategy."
       | 
       | Do you, yourself, even understand what this means? This isn't a
       | coherent, structured thought. Worse, the negation! The whole
       | sentence _requires_ a negation to actually even exist and count
       | as a valid ... _verbal construct_.
       | 
       | ...
       | 
       | If this is just trolling, though, then it's a fucking master-
       | piece.
        
         | burnished wrote:
         | Could you re-edit with less vitriol?
        
       | baxtr wrote:
       | Surprisingly, this post lacked clarity. To me, at least.
        
         | MrYellowP wrote:
         | Just so you know: I am _absolutely_ certain that it 's not you.
        
       | basseq wrote:
       | Horribly written. Seems like the crux here is twofold:
       | 
       | 1. Strategies should be directionally correct to help guide an
       | organization to a common goal, but not be overly prescribed in
       | order to adapt and remain flexible in the face of an unknowable
       | future.
       | 
       | 2. People like confidence, so if you say, "We'll figure it out as
       | we go along", it sounds like you don't know what you're doing,
       | and no one will follow you.
       | 
       | The natural result if these two forces are strategies _sound_
       | good (i.e.,  "certainty") by lack real strategic meat (i.e.,
       | "clarity/coherence")--either by being overly vague or too
       | tactical. So the crux, as a strategic leader, is to figure out
       | how to drive _confidence_ in a strategy while  "also
       | acknowledging uncertainty".
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | dchuk wrote:
       | Vision: How the future will look
       | 
       | Mission: What's compelling us to make that Vision real
       | 
       | Strategy (as a roadmap): The ways we think we could get closer to
       | creating the future contained in the Vision
       | 
       | Backlog: How we've chosen to try and move forward on the Strategy
        
         | karatinversion wrote:
         | I always have a concrete example in my mind in any discussion
         | of strategy, to keep it grounded. So:
         | 
         | Vision: the unconditional surrender of Nazi German
         | 
         | Mission: defeat Germany militarily
         | 
         | Strategy: land an army in northern France, liberate France,
         | invade and occupy Germany
         | 
         | Backlog:
         | 
         | - [...]
         | 
         | - isolate Cherbourg
         | 
         | - [...]
         | 
         | - capture Cherbourg
         | 
         | - [...]
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-06-24 23:02 UTC)