I’m interested in your experience of what “rarely stops there”? I’m a bit of a strategy nerd and am sceptical of most activities that get labelled as strategy. I tend towards the “strategy as coherent set of choices” doctrine and the major thing missing with pillars or themes is that they don’t clearly spell out these choices.
I’m interested in your experience of what “rarely stops there”? I’m a bit of a strategy nerd and am sceptical of most activities that get labelled as strategy. I tend towards the “strategy as coherent set of choices” doctrine and the major thing missing with pillars or themes is that they don’t clearly spell out these choices.
One could specify a theme or pillar around working with value-aligned customers. This theme clearly makes a choice (don’t work with customers who don’t share your values) and it invokes a set of related actions (which gets us towards strategy). It is categorical but I don’t see that as bad.
Like many things is the problem in the use of the metaphor, not the metaphor itself?
The same interpretation of strategy here :) A central theme of my publication is around persistent models that aid strategy deployment.
What I have observed is siloes forming around the theme, and essential contributions to progress may be delayed.
The themes get imported as projects or programmes etc..
There is wasted effort debating under which pillar something lives etc.
Of course this issue goes hand in hand with strategy not being as continuous as it should with learning to validate or invalidate hypotheses that underpin the selected choices. So it can be hard to unpick which issue is driving which behavior.
The conclusion relating to the effects of categorical pillars is from talking to people to understand their rationale.
Worth a longer chat. Valid questions I could support better maybe with more anecdotal examples from my career.
I’m interested in your experience of what “rarely stops there”? I’m a bit of a strategy nerd and am sceptical of most activities that get labelled as strategy. I tend towards the “strategy as coherent set of choices” doctrine and the major thing missing with pillars or themes is that they don’t clearly spell out these choices.
One could specify a theme or pillar around working with value-aligned customers. This theme clearly makes a choice (don’t work with customers who don’t share your values) and it invokes a set of related actions (which gets us towards strategy). It is categorical but I don’t see that as bad.
Like many things is the problem in the use of the metaphor, not the metaphor itself?
The same interpretation of strategy here :) A central theme of my publication is around persistent models that aid strategy deployment.
What I have observed is siloes forming around the theme, and essential contributions to progress may be delayed.
The themes get imported as projects or programmes etc..
There is wasted effort debating under which pillar something lives etc.
Of course this issue goes hand in hand with strategy not being as continuous as it should with learning to validate or invalidate hypotheses that underpin the selected choices. So it can be hard to unpick which issue is driving which behavior.
The conclusion relating to the effects of categorical pillars is from talking to people to understand their rationale.
Worth a longer chat. Valid questions I could support better maybe with more anecdotal examples from my career.