Posted on

Blue Ocean Strategy Had a Flaw No-One Talks About

There is a book on the shelf of almost every serious executive in the world. It has sold over four million copies, been translated into 46 languages, and spawned an entire consulting industry. Its central idea is so compelling that once you hear it, you cannot unhear it.

The book is Blue Ocean Strategy (BOS), published in 2004 by W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne. The central idea: stop fighting competitors for the same shrinking pool of customers. Create new market space where competition is irrelevant. Stop swimming in a Red Ocean of blood and churn. Find your Blue Ocean.

Every executive who has heard this wants it. The aspiration is sound. The problem is that the book quietly fails to deliver what its title promises – and that failure has cost organizations time in over two decades of strategy retreats.

The Word That Did the Damage

The most consequential editorial decision in modern management publishing happened when the authors agreed to put the word “Strategy” in the title.

That single word changed how executives read the book. Strategy implies a plan. A method. A set of steps you can follow to get from where you are to where you want to be. Executives arrived at the book expecting operational guidance. What they received instead was one of the most elegant collections of business case studies ever assembled — and no instructions for replication.

Consider the cases. Cirque du Soleil, the book’s showcase story, reinvented the circus by eliminating animals and creating a sophisticated adult entertainment category. Yellow Tail wine made wine approachable for beer drinkers by stripping out complexity and jargon. NVIDIA opened its graphics processors to general computing and created an entirely new category of accelerated processing. Taylor Swift reinvented the artist’s relationship to fans, catalog ownership, and brand extension.

Each case is vivid. Each pattern is compelling. But each story was crafted long after the journey was complete.

That is the problem. Every case in the book is retrospective. The authors identified companies that had already succeeded, mapped their moves, and presented the pattern. What they did not — and perhaps could not — provide is a repeatable method for how your company executes a similar move from scratch, in your industry, with your constraints, before the outcome is known.

This is not a minor gap. It is the structural flaw that separates the book’s promise from its delivery. And it helps explain why boardrooms around the world have produced beautiful strategy canvases (as the book instructs) and returned to fighting the same competitive battles the following Monday morning.

The Tool That Starts in the Wrong Place

There is a deeper problem, and it lives inside the book’s primary diagnostic instrument — the Eliminate, Reduce, Raise, Create grid, known as the ERRC.

To use the ERRC grid, you map what your industry currently does across every competitive factor, then decide what to eliminate, reduce, raise, and create. Every factor you analyze is defined in relation to what competitors already do. The entire diagnostic starts with your rivals.

Here is the irony: a framework designed to help you escape competition requires you to think about competition first. If your strategic imagination is anchored to what already exists, you have not left the Red Ocean. You have only rearranged your position within it. The book’s primary tool quietly undermines its central promise.

The Pattern the Book Ignores

Set aside the tool problem for a moment. Assume your team finds its Blue Ocean. You create uncontested market space, grow rapidly, and establish genuine differentiation. What happens next?

Blue Ocean Strategy is largely silent on this question. And the answer, drawn from its own case studies, is uncomfortable.

Cirque du Soleil created its blue ocean in the 1980s and spent nearly four decades defending it. New competitors entered experiential entertainment. Costs rose. The company took on debt to fund global expansion. In June 2020, it filed for bankruptcy protection.

Netflix invented streaming video and watched Disney, Amazon, Apple, and dozens of others flood the same space within a decade. Uber redefined urban transportation and has spent most of its existence losing money as imitators replicated its model in every major market.

These are not execution failures. They are the inevitable result of treating a blue ocean as a destination rather than a phase.

Every competitive advantage has an expiry date. The timeline varies — years, sometimes decades — but the sequence never changes. You create uncontested space. Competitors notice. Imitators arrive. Margins compress. The blue ocean turns red. This is not misfortune. It is the entirely predictable lifecycle of any strategic advantage, and it has been predictable for a long time.

That is the core of what Blue Ocean Strategy leaves out: a theory of time.

The book is written as though the strategic challenge is finding the right space. It is not. The deeper challenge is understanding that every space you find is already aging from the moment you enter it — and that long-term survival depends on building the next blue ocean while the current one is still profitable enough to fund it.

A framework called the Three Horizons Framework, developed by Hodgson, Curry and others, addresses precisely this gap. It argues that organizations must simultaneously protect today’s advantage, develop tomorrow’s opportunity, and explore the possibilities that will matter in five to ten years. Not sequentially. Simultaneously. Because by the time your current advantage is visibly declining, it is already too late to begin building its replacement.

Blue Ocean Strategy asks: where should we compete? The Three Horizons Framework asks: for how long, and what comes next? The first question without the second is not a strategy. It is a plan with no second act — which is exactly what Cirque du Soleil, Netflix, and Uber each discovered in turn.

The Company That Proved Both Points

Wawa is a food retailer based in the northeastern United States. It operates convenience stores, fuel stations, and quick-service restaurants — three of the lowest-margin, highest-failure-rate business categories in existence. It is also, by most available measures, one of the most successful blue ocean practitioners in American business history.

In 2009, facing a world where supermarkets, fast casual chains, and fuel retailers were all converging on its territory, Wawa’s leadership formally applied the Blue Ocean tools. The strategy canvas and ERRC grid structured their analysis and were genuinely useful. They identified that their weakest offering — food service — was also their highest-potential opportunity for differentiation.

What followed was systematic reinvention. Wawa repositioned from a convenience store that also sold food into a quality quick-service restaurant that also sold fuel and convenience items. Fresh bread baked on premises. Customizable meals made to order. High-quality coffee at accessible prices. Touchscreen ordering kiosks. A store layout redesigned with food at the center.

The results are measurable. An average 7-Eleven generates roughly US$30,000 to $35,000 in weekly revenue per store. Wawa averages US$116,000. That gap — more than three times the category standard — is what genuine blue ocean execution produces in real dollars.

Perhaps more telling is what the broader industry makes of Wawa’s performance. QSR 50, the standard industry ranking of quick-service restaurants, does not include Wawa in its listings. The reason given is that Wawa sells fuel and packaged goods, which technically classifies it as a convenience store rather than a restaurant. If Wawa were included, it would rank first in per-store sales — ahead of McDonald’s, Chick-fil-A, and Panera Bread. The most effective blue ocean practitioner in American retail is invisible to the industry supposed to be tracking it. That is what genuine category creation actually looks like.

But here is the detail that the book’s framework cannot account for, delivered in the words of Wawa’s own former CEO Howard Stoeckel: “We’re paranoid when it comes to success and we’re always reinventing ourselves.”

Not proud. Not secure. Paranoid.

Wawa has reinvented itself across more than two centuries — from dairy farming to grocery retail to convenience stores to fuel to quick-service restaurants. Each reinvention happened before the previous model was exhausted. In 2012, Stoeckel announced that Wawa was no longer a convenience store. It was, he declared, “a leading quick-service restaurant and leader in the fast-casual-to-go space that also sells gas and convenience items.” No such category existed at scale at the time. Competitors scoffed. Customers gradually came to see it exactly that way.

That move — naming a new space and teaching the market to recognize it before rivals could claim it — is not in the Blue Ocean book. It belongs to a separate body of thinking about category design, developed by writers including Christopher Lochhead, Eddie Yoon, and Nicolas Cole. Their argument is direct: whoever names the new category can dominate it for decades to come. Language is key. The market does not automatically recognize new value — someone has to hand it the vocabulary.

What Executives Should Actually Do

Blue Ocean Strategy offers the right aspiration. The ambition to escape a competitive space rather than simply fight better within it is correct, and the book makes that case more compellingly than almost anything else in the management canon.

But aspiration without method produces what most organizations have experienced: a retreat, a strategy canvas, a renewed sense of possibility, and no change the following quarter.

The complete system looks something like this. Use BOS to identify where genuine value innovation is possible — where you can create new demand rather than compete for existing demand. Apply a long-horizon lens from the moment you make your move, treating your new blue ocean as inherently temporary and building the next opportunity while the current one is still strong. Invest as much in naming and framing your new category as you do in designing it — because a blue ocean no one can describe is a blue ocean no one will defend.

The book is not wrong. It is incomplete. Read it for the vision it provides so clearly. Then build the method around it that it never supplies.

PS — Going Deeper: Five Prompts for Your AI Assistant

The arguments in this article can be taken further using any AI tool. Here are five prompts to continue the thinking:

  1. “Map my company’s current strategy against the Three Horizons Framework by Hodgson and Curry. Ask me questions about our current business, emerging threats, and what’s already replacing us in the market.”
  2. “Using Blue Ocean Strategy’s ERRC grid as a starting point, help me identify where my industry’s assumptions are so deeply embedded that we have stopped questioning them.”
  3. “Give me five examples of companies that created a genuine blue ocean, then failed to build the next one before their advantage decayed. What was the warning signal they missed in each case?”
  4. “Help me write a category definition statement for my business — not what we do, but what new space we are creating and why we should own it.”
  5. “Based on Wawa’s reinvention story, design a set of questions I can bring to my next strategy retreat to test whether we are building our next blue ocean or simply defending the current one.”
Posted on

Why Every Corporate Strategy in Your Industry Sounds the Same – And It’s Not Your Team’s Fault

This article first appeared on Businesssuite Online.

An awkward silence falls over boardrooms when directors flip through a newly printed plan and instantly recognise it. To their frustration, almost nothing has changed since the last one done five years before. Despite clearly stated expectations, little has shifted. So what’s missing?

The reason the strategic logic remained unchanged (and your company didn’t move up the Businessuite Top 100 list) is usually blamed on the executive team. Not enough creativity. Not willing to challenge assumptions. Not able to rigorously examine calcified, stale doctrines.

Unfortunately, rotating C-Suiters doesn’t work. Neither does a demand for bolder thinking. Or outside experts who merely recycle known frameworks.

But before you intervene, consider the actual inputs which feed into the process. Your senior team reads the same Harvard Business Review articles as others in the region. They listen to the same lecturers explain the same frameworks. They follow the same big players.

And when they reach for inspiration, they draw from the same narrow pool as always. This is why regardless if you replace the entire C-Suite tomorrow, the next plan will look the same.

The condition is called “input homogeneity.” Same inputs = same outputs. Here is a way to intervene in even the most stubborn situations.

The Ghost Conversation

There is an element of the overall discussion which takes place in every company…but not in the formal process. Where does it happen? In the car park, over drinks, or in the hallway between sessions. The topic? A threat only addressed in quiet tones.

It never makes it onto a slide deck, but it keeps senior executives up at night due to its power and danger. The single-revenue dependency. The demographic shift. The regulatory change. The new technology tearing up the industry in Asia.

You know which conversation this is at your company. (And even if you belong to the public sector, you are well aware of defunded organisations which lost their way, only to be folded meekly into others.)

The reason these discussions remain informal is not cowardice.

Instead, the common three-to-five-year planning horizon is just short enough to filter out these questions. Why? Inside the usual retreat, everyone unconsciously assumes the current business model will survive… ”it only needs a few tweaks.” The industry structure is also accepted: it won’t change either.

Nobody has to challenge these assumptions because the truncated window makes them seem reasonable. Plus, your incentives reward confident planners, not the ones that point out uncomfortable vulnerabilities.

Consequently, the most strategically valuable conversation in the company remains permanently and repeatedly excluded from the corporate strategy.

Three Inputs That Change Everything

If the problem is structural, so is the fix. Forgo reshuffling the C-Suite, and craft three fresh inputs instead.

Stretch the horizon. In your next session, ask the team to select a new time frame between 15-30-years. Not to forecast, because no-one can predict that far. Consider this a stress test of your company’s “winning” formula, if it follows the current path.

The gap between the projected faraway future and your likely, default trajectory shows the reality you must confront. You will find that a longer window does not necessarily produce better predictions. But it will produce better (but uncomfortable) questions, the kind a five-year horizon conveniently avoids – but shouldn’t.

Contaminate the reference base. Stop benchmarking only your direct competitors. Introduce strategic patterns from industries and geographies your team has never studied. When a Caribbean financial services firm studies how a logistics company in Southeast Asia restructured its value chain, the specific details are irrelevant. But the unfamiliar pattern breaks the grooves worn by years of studying the usual suspects. (Recommendation: use my compilation of cases at StratCinema.org to be efficient.)

Formalise the ghost conversation. Create a structured session — early in the process, not as an afterthought — where you explicitly ask the team to name the slow-burning threats everyone discusses privately.

This is not just brainstorming.

It is a permission structure. Most executives will not raise existential concerns unless the architecture of the session boldly invites them to.

Picture the boardroom again. The directors open the new plan. They begin reading. And for the first time in a decade, no one recognises it. Not because it is reckless, but because it addresses questions, the previous plans were incapable of asking.

It names what everyone knew but nobody had been permitted to say aloud. The team sitting around the table is the same one that produced the last plan. But the talent didn’t change. The inputs did.

The CEO who engineers that moment won’t need to explain what strategic leadership looks like. The room will already know.

Posted on

The Moment I Realised My Story Library Was Too Small

There is a specific kind of professional humiliation that doesn’t arrive with a bang. It sneaks in quietly, while you’re nodding, performing competence, convinced the conversation is going well.

Mine arrived fifty minutes into a live podcast recording with Seth Godin.

I was mid-interview. The mic was hot. And somewhere between his twelfth and thirteenth story, I heard myself say — out loud, on the record — “I don’t know how that magic works, because I don’t have anywhere near as many stories.”

Not to a colleague afterward. Not in a private debrief. To Seth. Live. While we were still recording.

That sentence has followed me since.

What I Watched Happen in One Hour

In sixty minutes, Seth Godin moved through fourteen distinct stories. Not anecdotes he was winging. Not tangents. Fourteen purposeful, precisely deployed narratives — each one doing specific work, each one landing cleanly and then stepping aside.

A hospital crib factory in Buffalo. A Walmart auditorium in Arkansas. A Google homepage with two links. A grease-covered piece of equipment that nobody had touched in a decade.

Every single one hit. Every single one served a function.

And I sat there with my small, carefully curated collection of retreat-tested stories — organised around a single argument about time horizons — and realised I had been confusing a handful of tools with an actual toolkit.

That’s not a library. That’s a filing cabinet with three folders.

The Research I Did After

The interview shook me enough to investigate. What exactly was Seth doing, and how consistently was he doing it?

With AI assistance, I pulled and analysed twelve recent Seth Godin interviews. Across all of them, he averaged 11.08 stories per conversation — 133 stories in total. His most recent book, This is Strategy, contains 87 stories.

So I asked him directly: “Is your list of stories infinite?”

His answer was more useful than I expected. “No,” he said. “And the best consultants carry around twenty stories.”

Twenty. Not two hundred. Not a bottomless archive. Twenty stories — known intimately, deployable on demand, calibrated for different rooms and different audiences. He compared it to master magicians: the great ones haven’t perfected a hundred tricks. They’ve mastered around a dozen, and they know exactly when to use each one.

Twenty stories. That’s the target. And most of us — including me, before that interview — couldn’t name five that we genuinely owned.

What Gladwell Does That Most Strategists Don’t

Malcolm Gladwell — bestselling author of The Tipping Point, Outliers, and Blink — operates on a similar principle, and his method is almost shamelessly transparent once you see it.

He never opens with a thesis. Never. There is always a human scene first. A hockey player’s birth month. A recipe for ketchup. A single moment of lived experience that drops you into a specific world before you’ve had time to raise your defenses.

Only once your attention is captured does he pull back to reveal the larger pattern.

And then — this is the part most people miss — he withholds the ending deliberately. He tells ninety percent of the story, pauses to layer in research, context, and argument, and only then closes the loop. By the time he delivers the conclusion, you’ve been waiting for it. You feel the release.

None of that is improvised. It is a deliberate system, engineered to do one specific thing: name what the audience already senses, but cannot articulate.

Seth described this in our conversation with a fundraising example. A skilled fundraiser, he said, doesn’t open with statistics about hunger. They open with a question: “What was it like at your dinner table growing up?” The data comes later. The story opens the door.

Both men are doing the same thing: uncovering the story that gives language to something the audience already intuitively knows. Seth calls this “profound” — not the delivery of new information, but the gift of precision to an existing intuition.

That is a fundamentally different job than most executives think storytelling does.

The Real Problem With How Strategists Use Stories

Most executives use stories as decoration. They drop one in to break up a dense presentation, to humanise a slide, to get a laugh after a difficult section.

That’s not what Godin and Gladwell are doing. Their stories aren’t decoration. They’re load-bearing. Remove them and the entire argument collapses.

The distinction matters enormously in strategy work. When you’re trying to shift how an organisation thinks about time, risk, or change — data alone does not move people. People need a narrative frame before they can absorb an argument. Stories aren’t the soft packaging around the hard thinking. They are the thinking, made transmissible.

Which means the question isn’t whether you have stories. Everyone has stories. The question is whether you have the right ones — ones that will actually land with your specific audience, in your specific context, under pressure.

Right now, most senior professionals cannot answer that question with any confidence.

Building the Library

Here is the uncomfortable truth: the gap Seth exposed cannot be closed by reading more books, attending more conferences, or taking another course.

It requires a different kind of discipline — one that is specific, deliberate, and ongoing.

Start with genuine curiosity. Not with what you think you should know, but with what actually pulls your attention. The stories that stick with you across months and years are telling you something about what you uniquely see that others miss. That’s the foundation.

Then do the work: find stories worth keeping, stress-test whether they will land with your audiences, organise them so they are retrievable under pressure — not just vaguely remembered — and practise the telling until it no longer feels like performance.

The raw material is everywhere. Platforms built for deliberate curation of strategic content exist precisely for this purpose. Decades of interviews, documentaries, case studies, and executive conversations are available to anyone willing to approach them with intention rather than passive consumption.

The constraint isn’t access. The constraint is discipline.

Seth’s number is twenty. Yours might be fewer. But you need to know which stories they are — you need to own them, not just have encountered them — and most of us, if we’re honest, are nowhere close.

The Sentence That Changed My Practice

I didn’t plan to be candid on that podcast. The confession about my own story gap wasn’t scripted vulnerability. It was the involuntary, real-time recognition of a professional blind spot I had been carrying for years without knowing it.

That’s how these things tend to arrive. Not in a structured self-assessment. Not in a performance review. In the middle of a live conversation with someone who has simply done the work you haven’t.

The question isn’t whether you’re a good strategist. You may well be exceptional at frameworks, diagnosis, and execution planning.

The question is whether your stories can do what Seth Godin’s stories do — open a door, name what your audience already senses, and make your argument not just understandable but felt.

If you’re not sure, that uncertainty is your answer.

Start building the library.

P.S. — The Curation Problem Has a Starting Point

If the article resonated, part of your next step is finding the right raw material — stories worth adding to your library, told by people who actually know how to tell them.

That’s exactly what StratCinema was built for. It’s a curated video platform for strategy professionals — not an algorithm feeding you whatever keeps you scrolling, but a deliberately assembled collection of interviews, case studies, and executive conversations selected because they carry genuine strategic weight.

Think of it as the opposite of YouTube’s recommendation engine.

If you’re serious about building your story library with intention, it’s a useful place to start: StratCinema.org

P.P.S. — Five Prompts to Go Deeper (Use These With Any LLM)

The ideas in this article are a door. These prompts help you walk through it.

  1. Audit Your Current Story Library “I’m a [role] working with [type of clients/organisations]. I want to identify the strategic stories I currently rely on. Help me audit them by asking me questions one at a time — what the story is, what argument it supports, and whether it would land with different audience types.”
  2. Reverse-Engineer a Master Storyteller “Analyse how Seth Godin uses stories in his writing and speaking. What structural patterns does he use consistently? Give me five specific techniques I can practise, with an example of each.”
  3. Find Stories Hidden in Your Own Experience “I’m going to describe three professional situations I’ve been in. For each one, help me identify whether there’s a story worth keeping — one that names something an audience already senses but can’t articulate. Ask me to describe the first situation.”
  4. Build a Story for a Specific Strategic Argument “I need to make the argument that [insert your strategic point] to an audience of [insert audience]. Don’t give me data or frameworks. Help me find or construct a story that opens a door to this idea — something human and specific that lands before I introduce the argument.”
  5. Design Your Personal Twenty-Story Repertoire “Seth Godin says the best consultants carry around twenty stories. Help me design mine. Based on my work in [field/industry], what categories of stories should I have in my library? Give me a framework for organising them by purpose — not by topic — so I can retrieve the right one under pressure.”

These work best when you treat the LLM as a thinking partner rather than a search engine. Push back on its answers. Ask it to go deeper. The prompts are a start — the conversation is the work.

Posted on

Your Mission-Driven Organization Deserves Better Strategy Tools

Picture a familiar scene in a non-profit organization. A hotel conference room. Flip charts on easels. A two-day offsite that everyone has blocked out on their calendar and quietly dreaded.

The exercises begin. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats. Stakeholder maps. Priority matrices. The team engages dutifully, filling in the boxes, generating the language that planning retreats are supposed to generate.

Then comes the afternoon slump – and it is not just fatigue from the morning’s work. Something more specific has happened. The conversation has drifted away from the reason the organisation exists. Words like “competitive positioning” and “market capture” are appearing on the sticky notes, and they feel borrowed – like wearing a suit that belongs to someone else.

Nobody says anything. Everyone is willing the process to work.

A document emerges by the final session. The board receives it at the next meeting. And within a few months, it occupies a shelf or a folder, largely untouched.

This is not a story about poor facilitation or disengaged leadership. It is a story about using the wrong instrument for the job.

Where These Frameworks Actually Come From

Management strategy as a discipline has a particular genealogy. The models that dominate executive education – the competitive analyses, the positioning matrices, the market share battles – were developed with a specific type of organisation in mind: businesses that survive or collapse based on their ability to outperform rivals and make profits.

The evidence is in the curriculum. Academic research suggests that the vast majority of MBA case material is drawn from industries where competition is the central organising tension. The mental model underneath most strategy training treats the world as a contest. There is a prize. There are opponents. The goal is to win more than you lose.

That framing is genuinely useful for firms operating in those conditions. The urgency of a competitor threatening your revenue is real, and tools designed around that urgency have genuine motivating power.

But take those same tools into a cooperative, a trade association, a government agency, or a development organisation, and something goes wrong almost immediately. (The same applies to a monopoly.) The animating force – the rival who might take what is yours – does not exist in the same way. Frameworks engineered around that force become awkward, like running software on a system it was never designed for.

The afternoon energy drop at your retreat was not a morale problem. It was the sound of a square peg meeting a round hole.

The Timeframe Problem Nobody Talks About

The mismatch runs deeper than vocabulary, though.

Competitive strategy is built around a particular relationship with time – specifically, a short one. The frameworks that dominate business education are oriented toward near-term results: quarterly performance, annual targets, the speed of response to a market threat.

Mission-driven organisations often operate under an entirely different time logic. A land trust working to preserve ecosystems, a credit union serving underbanked communities, a health institution building public capacity – these organisations are answerable to timescales that most competitive strategy tools cannot even see.

When a long-horizon organisation runs its strategy through a short-horizon framework, something gets quietly distorted. The institution begins optimising for the measurable and the near-term, while the foundational commitments – the ones that justify the organisation’s existence – drift into the background.

The Co-operative Group in the United Kingdom offers a sobering case study. Once among the most significant member-owned enterprises in the world, the Co-op entered the 2010s in serious trouble. An investigation into its near-collapse revealed a decade of decisions shaped by competitive growth logic: major retail acquisitions, banking mergers, rapid diversification across sectors. The goal had been scale – more market presence, more revenue streams, more assets.

What the organisation had not been tracking with the same rigour was whether any of this expansion was coherent with what a cooperative is actually for. Its governance was member-based. Its legitimacy came from community trust. Its identity was inseparable from a set of values about how business ought to be conducted.

By the time a £1.5 billion hole appeared in the banking arm, the institution had been operating with someone else’s strategy for years. The tools it had borrowed rewarded growth metrics. They had no mechanism for asking whether growth was serving the mission – or consuming it.

The same drift appears in organisations across every sector.

  • A humanitarian agency that chases high-visibility donor projects at the expense of quiet, unglamorous long-term work.
  • A professional body that adds revenue streams until its membership can no longer articulate what the body stands for.
  • A regional development authority that reports on outputs while the underlying social fabric it was created to strengthen continues to fray.

In each case, the damage is slow and largely invisible inside the planning documents that caused it.

Planning Built Around Purpose

What these organisations need is not a modified version of competitive planning. They need a process that begins with a different assumption — that strategy is about protecting and advancing a purpose across time, not about positioning against opponents.

  1. Such a process starts with an honest reckoning with the present. Before any direction is set, the organisation needs to understand where it actually stands – not just financially, but in terms of mission integrity. How is trust held among the people the organisation serves? When has the institution historically drifted from its purpose, and what triggered those moments? What resources – financial, relational, reputational – are genuinely available?
  2. From that foundation, a long horizon is established. Somewhere between fifteen and thirty years is typically productive. This might feel uncomfortably distant, but the distance is the point. It shifts the planning conversation away from quarterly anxieties and toward the questions that actually define an institution’s legacy.
  3. With a target horizon in place, the team explores a range of possible futures rather than committing to a single premature forecast. The world in twenty-five years will be shaped by forces that cannot be predicted with precision – demographic shifts, technological change, political reconfigurations, ecological pressures. Scenario thinking does not pretend otherwise. It builds the capacity to navigate uncertainty rather than deny it, and it asks the organisation to identify which kind of future best allows its mission to flourish.
  4. From a single chosen scenario, the planning process works backwards. If the organisation needs to be in a certain condition twenty-five years from now, what does the ten-year mark look like? The five-year mark? What must be in place, and by when? What are the big tradeoffs which need to be made? This backward mapping turns an inspiring long-term vision into a logical chain of necessary steps, each grounded in the one that follows it.
  5. Only after that work is complete does it make sense to design a short-term action plan – because now there is a genuine strategic context for it. Immediate decisions are no longer just reactive. They serve something larger. Here, further tradeoffs must be made.

The Question Underneath the Question

The mechanics matter, but the conceptual shift matters more.

Competitive strategy is structured around the question: How do we beat them? Purpose-driven strategy is structured around a different one: How do we remain who we are, and do what we exist to do, across the years ahead?

These produce very different conversations – different discussions at leadership retreats, different criteria for investment decisions, different definitions of success that get embedded in the culture over time.

Cooperatives, civil society organisations, public institutions, and social enterprises are not inferior versions of private companies. They are different kinds of institutions altogether, built on different social contracts, accountable to different stakeholders, and serving purposes that exist precisely because markets and competitive logic have limits.

The strategy process these organisations use should reflect that – not apologise for it.

When the next retreat in your non-profit ends with a document that finally stays off the shelf, it will be because the planning process started from the right place: not how do we win, but how do we endure, and why does it matter that we do.

—————————————

P.S. Here are some LLM prompts you can use for further investigation.

Go Deeper: Five Prompts for Further Exploration

The argument in this article points to a gap — between the strategy tools most executives have been given and the organisations they are actually leading. The five prompts below are designed for use with any AI assistant (Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or similar). Each one picks up where the article leaves off. Copy, paste, and adapt the parts in brackets to your own context.

Prompt 1: Diagnose Your Own Organisation

For the reader who finished the article thinking — “this is us.”

I lead a [cooperative / government agency / NGO / family business / religious institution / statutory body] in [country/region]. Based on the argument that most strategy frameworks were designed for competitive, profit-first organisations, help me diagnose whether my organisation has been using the wrong strategy tools.

Ask me five diagnostic questions — one at a time, waiting for my answer before moving to the next — that will reveal whether our strategy process is genuinely built around our mission and long time horizon, or whether we have been borrowing competitive frameworks that don’t fit.

After my five answers, give me an honest assessment of where we stand, and identify the single most dangerous misfit between the tools we are using and the organisation we actually are.

Prompt 2: Rebuild the Co-op’s Strategy — Non-Competitively

For the reader who found the Co-operative Group case study instructive and wants to go deeper.

The UK Co-operative Group’s near-collapse in 2013 has been attributed to governance failure and poor management. But a different diagnosis is possible: the Co-op was a mission-first, member-owned organisation that had adopted competitive private-sector strategy logic — chasing scale, acquisitions and market presence — instead of building strategy around what a cooperative is uniquely positioned to do.

Assume you are a strategy advisor brought in to the Co-op in 2005, before the Britannia merger and the Verde pursuit. Using only non-competitive strategy tools — scenario planning, category design, mission integrity analysis, and long-horizon thinking — build the outline of the strategic conversation the Co-op’s leadership should have been having. What questions should have been on the table? What 20-year opportunity was sitting unclaimed? What slow-moving threats should have been named? What would a purpose-first Co-op strategy for 2005–2030 have looked like?

Prompt 3: Design a Purpose-First Strategy Retreat

For the reader who is planning — or dreading — their next strategic planning offsite.

I need to design a two-day strategy retreat for the leadership team of a [describe your organisation type and size]. Our previous retreats have used standard frameworks — SWOT analysis, competitive positioning, priority matrices — and the resulting plans have consistently ended up on shelves.

The core problem is that those frameworks were designed for profit-first, competitor-facing businesses. We are a mission-first organisation with a long time horizon and no direct rival whose defeat would constitute success.

Design a full two-day retreat agenda that replaces competitive frameworks with purpose-built alternatives. Include: the opening question that reframes the entire conversation; how to run a scenario planning session for a non-technical audience; how to do backward mapping from a 25-year horizon to a 90-day action plan; and how to end the retreat with commitments that will actually survive contact with the following Monday morning.

Prompt 4: Make the Internal Case for Long-Term Thinking

For the reader who agrees with the argument but now has to convince a board or senior team that doesn’t.

I have read an argument that mission-driven organisations — cooperatives, government agencies, NGOs, religious institutions, family businesses — are systematically underserved by MBA-derived strategy frameworks because those frameworks were built for competitive, profit-first firms. I agree with this argument. My organisation is [describe it briefly].

The problem is that my board and senior leadership are not yet convinced. Several members have strong private-sector or MBA backgrounds and default to competitive strategy language. Others simply don’t see the urgency of changing our planning approach.

Help me build the internal case. Give me: three concrete examples of organisations like ours that failed — or significantly underperformed — because they used competitive strategy frameworks that didn’t fit; three compelling questions I can put to the board that will expose the mismatch without triggering defensiveness; and the single most persuasive one-paragraph argument I can make for why this matters now, not eventually.

Prompt 5: Apply Category Design to a Non-Competitive Organisation

For the reader intrigued by the article’s reference to category design as an alternative strategic tool.

Category design is a strategy framework developed primarily for technology and consumer companies. Its core idea is that instead of competing within an existing market, an organisation defines and dominates an entirely new category — changing what problem it is seen to solve and becoming the obvious answer to a question that previously wasn’t being asked.

I want to explore whether category design can be applied to a non-competitive organisation. My organisation is [describe: sector, size, core mission, approximate age, geographic context].

Walk me through a category design thinking process adapted for a mission-first organisation. Specifically: What category does my organisation currently occupy in the minds of the people it serves — and is that the right one? What problem could we redefine ourselves as the unique solution to? What would it mean for us to own a category rather than compete within one? And what is the 10-year version of success if we got this right?

A note on how to use these prompts: each one is a starting point, not a single exchange. The most productive approach is to begin the conversation, push back on the AI’s first response, add specifics about your own organisation, and treat the output as a thinking partner rather than a finished answer. Prompt 3 in particular benefits from iteration — run it once, then ask the AI to make the agenda harder, more honest, or more specific to your sector.

Posted on

Ep 34 How Do Leaders Make Decisions When There’s No Time and No Certainty?

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit longtermstrategy.substack.com

Your company is bleeding. The tariff just hit. Your board wants answers. You have 48 hours.

But sometimes the brutal truth is that the warning signs were there 20-years ago.

In this episode, Marcel Melzer stops the scroll with his contrarian claim: strategic decisions should take 48 hours, not months.

His “decision as a service” model combines strategic foresight with AI-augmented decision intelligence—delivering what traditional consulting takes 8 weeks to produce, in 2 days. The magic?

It’s not about perfect information. It’s about deciding at 80% confidence while your competitors are still scheduling meetings. We deconstruct a fictional case live, revealing why companies confuse firefighting with strategy, why past non-decisions create present disasters, and why the future belongs to leaders who can decide fast under uncertainty.

Jamaica just got hurricane-smashed—we need this yesterday.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Posted on

When the Future Lives in One Person’s Head

What a European tech giant understands about strategy that most boardrooms never will

There is a particular kind of corporate tragedy that doesn’t make headlines. No fraud. No scandal. No catastrophic product failure. Just a slow, invisible accumulation of risk — until one day, the whole structure collapses under its own weight.

It happens when a company mistakes activity for foresight.

The planning calendar is full. The board is engaged. The strategy deck is polished. And yet, somewhere in that busy, confident organisation, a quiet catastrophe is taking shape. Because nobody — not the CEO, not the board, not the executive team — has ever been asked to take serious ownership of what happens after year five.

This is not incompetence. It is a design flaw. And it is far more common than most leadership teams would care to admit.

The Company That Forgot to Ask

Picture a well-run, founder-led business. Nearly five decades of consistent growth. A charismatic patriarch who built the enterprise from nothing, understood every customer relationship personally, and carried the company’s long-term direction entirely in his own mind.

The planning process was real. The five-year cycles were taken seriously. Consultants were hired. Presentations were made. Targets were set and largely met.

Then the founder died.

Within weeks, the company’s strategic void became visible. There was no successor who understood where the business was going — because that destination had never been written down, debated, or distributed. It lived in one person’s mind, and it died with him.

A competitor saw the opening immediately. They moved quickly with a lowball acquisition offer — a fraction of what the business had taken decades to build. The leadership team, with no mandate and no map, accepted.

Fifty years of equity gone. Not because the organisation lacked talent, but because it lacked structure. Nobody had ever been asked, in any formal planning session, to imagine the business fifteen or twenty years out. The founder’s personal vision had been mistaken for a corporate strategy. They were not the same thing.

The Company That Starts in 2039

Now consider the opposite model.

ASML, headquartered in Eindhoven in the Netherlands, is Europe’s most valuable technology company. If you’ve never heard of them, that’s partly by design — they operate in the deep infrastructure of the global economy. Every advanced semiconductor chip produced on earth, inside every smartphone, data centre, and electric vehicle, depends on ASML’s machines. They hold a near-monopoly on the extreme ultraviolet lithography technology that makes modern computing possible.

What’s unusual about ASML is not their product. It’s how they think about time.

Most organisations build strategy by starting today and projecting forward. ASML reverses the sequence. Their planning begins at a future destination — currently, that horizon is 2039 — and works backwards to the present. The question driving every major strategic conversation is not “where can we realistically get to?” but “given where we need to be, what must we begin doing right now?”

Every September, ASML’s senior leadership and supervisory board gather for a structured multi-day offsite. The agenda is not a review of last year’s performance or a recalibration of near-term targets. It is a methodical examination of the gap between today’s capabilities and a specific set of technical requirements the world will demand fifteen years from now. From that gap, they derive their current priorities.

This is not vision-statement strategy. It is operational reverse-engineering.

The Detail That Should Unsettle You

But here is the part of ASML’s model that most organisations find genuinely difficult to replicate — not because it requires exceptional talent or resources, but because it requires a shift in culture that cuts against deeply held habits.

ASML does not do this alone.

Their three largest customers — Intel, Samsung, and TSMC — are active participants in the company’s long-range planning process. ASML consults them continuously, years in advance, to co-design future machines around the chips those customers will eventually need to produce. The strategic horizon is shared, not proprietary. The future is treated as a collaborative obligation rather than a competitive secret.

Think about what this means in practice. ASML’s planning process includes the voices of the organisations that will determine whether their future investments succeed or fail. They have structurally eliminated the risk of spending a decade building something their customers have quietly moved away from. Foresight is not an executive exercise conducted behind closed doors. It is a shared discipline embedded into the operating model.

Contrast this with how strategy typically works. In most organisations, long-range planning is handled by a small group, shielded from clients, suppliers, and sometimes even from the broader leadership team. The output is a document. The document is presented. The document is filed. The cycle repeats.

In that model, the future is nobody’s real responsibility.

The Excuses Are Everywhere

Ask executives why their organisations don’t plan further out, and the answers are remarkably consistent across industries and geographies.

“By the time any of this matters, I’ll have moved on.”

“We can barely manage the next quarter — asking me to think twenty years ahead feels absurd.”

“The environment changes so fast that long-range planning is just fiction.”

“That’s not what I’m measured on.”

These are not cynical responses. They are honest ones. And the honesty points directly at the problem. These executives are not failing to think long-term because they lack intelligence or ambition. They are failing because the systems around them — the incentives, the meeting structures, the planning processes, the performance frameworks — have never required them to do otherwise.

This is a design problem, not a people problem. You can replace every executive in the building, and if the planning process remains unchanged, you will get the same output.

The founder in our opening story was not surrounded by weak leaders. He was surrounded by capable people who had never been invited to take ownership of a question that extended beyond the current five-year cycle. When he died, that question died with him.

What Actually Needs to Change

ASML’s longevity and dominance are not explained by the quality of their engineers, though their engineers are excellent. They are explained by a structural decision: to build long-range thinking into the organisation’s architecture, not leave it to individual brilliance.

Over time, the planning process itself was designed to demand a different quality of thinking. The time horizon was extended. The conversation was opened to include the customers who would determine the future. The annual offsite was built around a single question that couldn’t be answered with last year’s data.

None of this is beyond the reach of organisations that are far smaller and less resourced than ASML. The barrier is not capability. It is commitment to changing the design of the conversation.

If your next planning session opens with a review of this year’s targets, ask what would change if it opened instead with a question about 2040. If your strategy is currently held by one or two senior leaders, ask what happens to it when they leave. If your longest planning horizon is five years, ask yourself honestly: is that a strategic decision, or simply the default you’ve never thought to question?

The organisations that outlast their founders, their industries, and their competitors are not the ones with the best five-year plans. They are the ones that learned, early enough, to treat the distant future as urgent.

The question is not whether you can afford to think that far ahead.

The question is whether you can afford not to.

Posted on

When Excellence Breeds Failure

Why Your Best Team Might Be Building Your Worst Disaster

Picture this: A talented leadership team. Top-tier credentials. Flawless execution. Every metric trending green. And yet, five years later, the company is fighting for survival—or worse, gone entirely.

This isn’t a story about incompetence. It’s something far more insidious. It’s about intelligent people trapped inside a system that rewards them for making precisely the wrong choices.

The Athletic Metaphor That Explains Everything

Want to see this pattern in pure form? Look at how different sports organizations develop talent.

Jamaica’s MVP Track Club has produced Olympic champions and world record holders whose careers span decades. Athletes like Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce and Elaine Thompson-Herah didn’t just win races—they sustained excellence well into their thirties, their bodies intact, their bank accounts healthy.

Meanwhile, the American collegiate athletics system—the NCAA—operates like a different species entirely. Talented high schoolers arrive with Olympic potential. Four years later, many flame out, never to compete internationally again. Bodies broken. Dreams abandoned.

Here’s what makes this fascinating: NCAA coaches aren’t incompetent. These are world-class professionals running billion-dollar programs with access to cutting-edge sports science. They track everything—times, splits, recovery metrics, nutrition, biomechanics.

Yet they’ve built a machine designed to extract maximum performance over four years, regardless of what happens afterward. The system optimizes perfectly—for conference championships, television contracts, recruitment rankings. And in the process, it systematically destroys the very athletes who make those outcomes possible.

MVP asked a different question entirely: What does success look like measured over a fifteen-year career instead of a four-year scholarship? The answer required sacrificing immediate gratification—forgoing certain meets, accepting slower progression, resisting the pressure to peak too early.

The NCAA doesn’t fail because its people are stupid. It fails because every incentive, every measurement, every reward structure points them toward short-term glory and long-term destruction. And every dashboard they monitor confirms they’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to do—right up until the athlete graduates broken.

Now here’s the uncomfortable question: Is your company running the NCAA playbook?

The Corporate Version of Athletic Destruction

Corporate history is littered with smart people making decisions that looked brilliant on every spreadsheet while quietly demolishing the foundation beneath them.

Consider the financial sector meltdowns of recent decades. Before the 2008 crisis, before Enron, before the savings and loan disasters of the 1980s, things looked spectacular. Quarterly earnings beat expectations. Risk models showed green lights. Executives earned accolades for innovative financial engineering.

The long-term destruction was being created from day one. Not by people too stupid to see it, but by systems designed never to look for it.

Why Intelligence Doesn’t Protect You

The trap works like this: The CEO who sacrifices this quarter’s numbers to protect next decade’s foundation doesn’t get applauded at the board meeting. They get questioned. Their judgment gets doubted. Their compensation takes a hit.

Meanwhile, the executive who delivers short-term wins—even by mortgaging the future—gets promoted, celebrated, interviewed by business publications.

This isn’t a failure of intelligence, discipline, or execution. It’s a design flaw in how success gets measured.

The answer isn’t working harder within the existing framework. It’s redesigning the framework itself. That requires confronting existential questions about what you’re actually optimizing for—and having the courage to challenge metrics that everyone agrees are “obviously” correct.

Three Techniques to Surface Hidden Disasters

Here are practical methods to force your leadership team to see beyond the quarterly mirage:

  1. The Pre-Mortem Exercise

Gather your strategy team. Give them one instruction: Assume your current initiative has failed catastrophically fifteen years from now. Write the detailed story of exactly how and why.

Not vague organizational hand-wringing like “we didn’t execute well enough.” A specific, uncomfortable narrative that traces the chain of consequences from today’s confident decision to tomorrow’s wreckage.

The discipline is in the specificity. “We lost market share” is useless. “We optimized our pricing algorithm for immediate margin expansion, which slowly trained our best customers to view us as a commodity, which eroded pricing power, which forced us into a desperate discount spiral that destroyed brand equity and made us vulnerable to a well-funded competitor who simply waited us out” is useful.

  1. The Second-Order Impact Map

Most strategy discussions evaluate immediate effects and stop there. “This restructuring reduces overhead by 18%.” Applause. Meeting adjourned.

The second-order map refuses to stop. It forces the room to keep pulling the thread: That cost reduction eliminates redundancy. Which reduces organizational resilience. Which means the next market shock hits harder. Which forces emergency measures. Which creates exactly the kind of chaos that drives your best people to competitors. Who use them to build what you should have built.

Keep pulling until the consequences become uncomfortable enough to reconsider the decision.

  1. The Twenty-Years-Later Role Play

Identify the youngest person in your leadership team. They become a time traveler.

It’s twenty years in the future. A new generation of leaders asks them: “What was it like in that 2026 strategy session? What did your team decide?”

They respond with two scenarios. First, the courage scenario: “We confronted the hardest questions. We acknowledged uncomfortable truths. We made decisions that hurt short-term but protected long-term. Here’s how it played out.”

Second, the cowardice scenario: “We pretended things we knew weren’t true. We optimized for looking good rather than being good. We told ourselves comfortable lies. Here’s the price we paid.”

The technique works because it makes abstract future consequences feel visceral and immediate.

The Choice That Defines Leadership

Every organization faces the same fundamental question: Are you building an MVP or running an NCAA program?

Are you optimizing for sustainable excellence or spectacular quarterly performance? Are you protecting the foundation or mining it for short-term gains?

The smartest people in the room will keep making the worst decisions until the room itself gets redesigned. Until the metrics change. Until the incentives shift. Until the questions being asked force long-term consequences into immediate view.

The techniques exist. The choice is whether you have the courage to use them.

P.S. Five Prompts for Deeper Reflection

Use these with your preferred AI to explore how these patterns might be operating in your specific context:

  1. “I’m a [your role] at a [your industry] company. We’re currently optimizing for [your key metric]. Help me identify what long-term value we might be destroying in the process. Be brutally specific about the chain of consequences I’m not seeing.”
  2. “Run a pre-mortem analysis: It’s 2040, and the strategy we implemented in 2025 has failed catastrophically. Write the detailed story of how our decision to [your current initiative] led to our downfall. Don’t hold back on uncomfortable specifics.”
  3. “I need a second-order impact map. Our first-order effect from [your decision] is [immediate outcome]. Help me trace at least five levels deeper into the consequences, particularly the ones that would take years to surface but would be devastating when they do.”
  4. “Create a dialogue between my 2025 self and my 2045 self. The older version has lived through the consequences of [current strategic choice]. What would they tell me that I’m not willing to hear right now?”
  5. “Analyze my industry through the NCAA vs MVP lens. Who in my competitive landscape is running the short-term optimization playbook? Who’s building for decades? What specific metrics distinguish them? What would it cost me to switch approaches?”

Posted on

Strategic Fluency – Frameworks or Stories?

Transcript

00:00:01

Stop me if you’ve been in Bob’s position. Every strategist learns the frameworks. Porto five forces, blue ocean strategy, and SWAT analysis. And we assume great strategy comes from great frameworks. So how Schultz of Starbucks fame, he knew all of the frameworks, but he didn’t transform Starbucks or any of them. In 1983, Schulz visited Milan. He walked into an express bar. He saw the ritual, the community, the third place between home and work. And that experience became a story. That story became his northstar.

00:00:34

That story created a hundred billion dollar plus company. Not a framework, a story. But here’s where most strategists get stuck. Baba spent hours preparing for the strategy retreat. He had the perfect framework from his MBA and he was excited because he was going to nail it by explaining this framework. As the conversation progressed, some doubts crept in, but he prepared for hours. So when the moment came he jumped in and as he explained his framework eyes glazed over. So he tried to speed up

00:01:07

that made it worse. Phones came out people started to read and his boss gave him a dark look that was kind of like a cut it out and Bob gave up. But moments later another colleague jumped in. And in that case, she told a story. And Bob suddenly realized she was explaining the same concept that he just tried to describe using a framework. But this time, the heads were nodding. There were some new insights that were emerging as people built on her initial story. There was some buying happening. She was accomplishing the result. And he

00:01:42

thought to himself, why didn’t I try that? Well, here’s what he discovered and what Howard Schultz knew all along. that we’ve been taught that strategic thinking is about mastering frameworks. They give us the illusion of sophistication. But here’s the truth that plays out in every boardroom and every strategy retreat and every presentation given by consultants that there’s a big difference between strategic thinking and strategic fluency. Strategic thinking is all about those frameworks

00:02:09

that you learned in MBA school, ones I mentioned before. Strategic fluency teaches you stories. So when JFK committed America to go to the moon, he didn’t pull out the Gad chart. He didn’t tell a framework. Instead, he went to the future and told a story about the future. So the best strategists actually aren’t searching for which framework applies in which situation. Instead, they’re reaching out for their curated collection of signature stories. So how do you avoid that awkward moment Bob

00:02:38

found himself in? I recommend that you prepare three signature stories. One transformational stories like the one about Schulz in Milan. One about the future like Kennedy’s moonshot. And one story about strategic choice. That’s three stories. Good news is that Strat Cinema helps you to find your three.

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit longtermstrategy.substack.com/subscribe

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Posted on

The Strategy Handoff Crisis: Why Your Successor Can’t Think Like You Do

Companies obsess over documenting financial controls. They create detailed procedure manuals for operations. Yet when it comes to transferring strategic thinking between executives, most organizations fail spectacularly.

The problem isn’t a lack of documentation. It’s documenting the wrong things entirely.

The Six-Month Struggle Every Incoming Executive Faces

Here’s a scenario playing out in boardrooms worldwide: A seasoned executive departs. Their replacement inherits comprehensive transition materials—market analyses, strategic frameworks, financial models, implementation roadmaps, organizational diagrams, and risk assessments.

The incoming leader dedicates weeks to reviewing everything. They schedule meetings with key stakeholders. They take copious notes. They ask intelligent questions.

Six months later, they’re still struggling to make strategic calls with the confidence their predecessor demonstrated. They hesitate where the former leader acted decisively. They miss contextual nuances that seem obvious in hindsight.

What went wrong?

Nothing and everything. The documentation was thorough. The transition process followed best practices. But the handoff materials contained polished conclusions instead of strategic thinking itself.

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding about how strategic capability actually transfers between leaders.

What Your Transition Documents Are Actually Missing

Those transition binders look impressive. They contain everything a rational person would consider important: competitive threat assessments organized by market segment, positioning frameworks with detailed differentiation matrices, three-scenario financial projections, milestone-dependent implementation schedules, and comprehensive risk mitigation plans.

The critical gap? None of these materials explain how the organization arrived at its current strategic direction.

The genesis moment goes undocumented. Was the strategic pivot triggered by nearly losing a major client? Did a competitor’s unexpected move force a rethink? Did a board member ask an uncomfortable question that wouldn’t go away?

The discovery process remains invisible. What initial research contradicted long-held assumptions? Which sacred cows got sacrificed? When did the leadership team realize their comfortable worldview was dangerously wrong?

The human drama gets erased. That intense multi-day retreat where Finance and Operations clashed over resource priorities? Forgotten. The skeptical VP who opposed the initiative before becoming its most passionate advocate? Airbrushed out. The moment someone finally said what everyone was thinking but nobody wanted to acknowledge? Lost forever.

Most leadership teams justify these omissions with variations of: “That’s just internal politics. It’s unprofessional. The new executive needs our decisions, not our dirty laundry.”

This thinking is precisely backwards.

Why Messy Origin Stories Create Strategic Ownership

Consider two incoming executives facing the same strategic direction.

Executive A receives polished slide decks explaining the final strategic framework. Clean. Professional. Complete.

Executive B receives the full origin story: the triggering incident, the initial resistance, the data that changed minds, the fierce debates, the breakthrough moments, the implementation battles.

Three months later, both executives face pressure to abandon elements of the strategy. Market conditions have shifted. Key stakeholders are pushing for different priorities. Quick wins from alternative approaches look tempting.

Executive A, having only received conclusions, treats the strategy as inherited wisdom. They lack emotional investment. When challenged, they can recite the framework but can’t defend its foundations. They become susceptible to any argument that sounds reasonable because they never witnessed why alternative approaches were rejected.

Executive B, understanding the battle scars, responds differently. They know which assumptions were tested and survived. They understand which stakeholder concerns were addressed and how. They recognize which seductive alternatives were explicitly considered and rejected, and why. This knowledge creates conviction.

The messiness isn’t an embarrassing artifact to hide. It’s the mechanism that transforms a successor from a strategy executor into a strategy guardian.

Without origin stories, you’re handing someone a map without teaching them how to read terrain. They can follow the route you marked, but they can’t navigate when conditions change.

How Mental Models Beat Exhaustive Analysis

The second critical gap involves transferring strategic thinking patterns rather than strategic conclusions.

Your comprehensive transition documents provide analysis. What incoming executives actually need are the mental frameworks that generated that analysis.

Consider a healthcare organization undertaking strategic transformation. Traditional handoff approach: a 200-page document detailing market research, competitive positioning, customer segmentation, channel strategy, technology roadmap, and financial projections.

Alternative approach: “We’re becoming the Netflix of healthcare.”

That single sentence does more strategic work than 200 pages ever could. It instantly conveys: subscription relationships over transactional interactions, integrated digital experiences instead of fragmented touchpoints, platform thinking rather than service delivery, customer lifetime value over point-of-sale margins.

An incoming executive who internalizes this pattern can make hundreds of subsequent decisions aligned with strategic intent—without referring back to documentation. The pattern provides a mental model for evaluating new opportunities, prioritizing resources, and making trade-offs.

Analysis answers specific questions. Patterns teach strategic thinking.

Most transition documents fail here because outgoing executives don’t explicitly name the strategic patterns they’re using. These frameworks remain implicit—obvious to the departing leader but invisible to their successor.

Creating Genuine Strategic Urgency

The third missing element is the diagnostic story that explains why the current strategy became necessary.

Generic problem statements fill transition documents: “Market conditions are evolving.” “We need to maintain competitive advantage.” “Customer expectations are changing.”

These platitudes don’t create urgency. They create checkbox compliance.

Contrast that with a genuine diagnostic story: “Our analysis revealed we were Blockbuster in 2005. We had dominant market share, strong brand recognition, and profitable operations. We were also completely vulnerable. While we defended a dying business model, our industry’s Netflix equivalent was growing 40% annually. Our window for strategic response was roughly 18 months before our competitive position would become unrecoverable.”

That’s a diagnostic story with teeth. It explains why inaction represented an existential threat, not merely a missed opportunity. It creates urgency by making the stakes visceral and the timeline concrete.

Start Building Your Strategic Story Library Today

Most executives struggle to capture these three story types because they haven’t developed pattern recognition for what makes strategic stories effective. You need exposure to dozens of transformation cases before your mind identifies the underlying structures.

The solution? Deliberate practice with real business transformation narratives.

Start by studying how successful leaders explain their strategic pivots. Look for moments when executives describe “how we nearly missed this” or “why we became the [X] of our industry.” These moments contain the raw material for powerful strategic stories.

But finding quality transformation case studies scattered across YouTube and business media takes time—time most executives don’t have. That’s why platforms like StratCinema.org exist: to curate business transformation stories specifically for strategists developing this narrative fluency. Instead of algorithm-driven suggestions that keep you watching but not learning, you get carefully selected case studies that build pattern recognition.

Your next leadership transition deserves better than polished slide decks. It requires origin stories that create ownership, pattern stories that transfer mental models, and diagnostic stories that sustain urgency. Document these with the same rigor you apply to financial controls, and your successor won’t just execute your strategy—they’ll defend and evolve it.

P.S. Use AI to Capture Your Strategic Stories

Don’t have time to craft these stories from scratch? Modern AI tools can help you extract and structure the strategic narratives already in your head. Here are three sets of prompts—one for each story type—that you can use with any large language model to develop handoff materials that actually transfer strategic thinking.

Origin Story Prompts

“I need to document how our [specific strategic initiative] actually came together. Help me structure an origin story by asking me questions about: What triggered our initial concern? What was the ‘oh shit’ moment that made this urgent? Who were the initial skeptics and what convinced them? What data or insights contradicted our assumptions? What internal conflicts emerged during planning? Which alternatives did we seriously consider and reject? What breakthrough moment changed our approach? Walk me through these questions one at a time, then help me shape my answers into a compelling narrative that shows future leaders why this strategy emerged and what obstacles we overcame.”

Pattern Story Prompts

“Our strategy can be summarized as ‘[our approach]’ but I need to articulate the mental model behind it. Help me identify the pattern we’re following by asking: What successful company or strategy are we emulating? What’s our ‘[X] of [Y]’ statement? What core principle guides our decision-making? What trade-offs does this pattern naturally suggest? What does this pattern tell us to prioritize versus ignore? If someone internalized this pattern, what decisions would they make differently? Help me craft a concise pattern statement that transfers strategic intuition, not just strategic conclusions. Make it memorable enough that leaders can apply it without consulting documentation.”

Diagnostic Story Prompts

“I need to explain why our strategy was necessary—not just beneficial. Help me create a diagnostic story that conveys genuine urgency by asking: What complacent narrative were we telling ourselves before? What data revealed our vulnerability? What competitor or market shift threatened our position? What timeline were we facing? What would failure have looked like? What historical business failure does our situation resemble? Help me structure this into a narrative that makes inaction feel existential, not merely suboptimal. The goal is to transfer the visceral urgency we felt when we realized we had to transform.”

Posted on

Ep 33 – From Laundry-list, Wishlist or Checklist to a Game-Changing Strategy

Picture two teams in your company, six months apart.

The first team is drowning. They have 47 “strategic initiatives” on their list, no clear way to prioritize, and every meeting devolves into debates about resources. Morale is terrible, and nobody can articulate what they’re really trying to accomplish.

Fast forward six months: the same team, but now they’re energized, focused, and can explain their strategy in three minutes. Projects that don’t serve their core hypothesis get killed quickly. They’re making contingency plans because they understand their strategy is a bet, not a certainty.

What happened in between?

They stopped confusing a strategic plan with actual strategy. Today, I want to walk you through that transformation, because the gap between these two states isn’t about working harder—it’s about thinking differently.

Tune into this episode to join me in tackling this wicked problem.

I’m Francis Wade and welcome to the JumpLeap Long-Term Strategy Podcast

Here is a video of the full episode. You can also follow the podcast on YouTube.

Show Notes

NotebookLM link

https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/6e0f6686-25ff-44b8-a629-54df92dbef7c?authuser=1

Link to Fictional Credit Union Case

https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/33364888-4e5a-4738-80d1-24f2c42c66cd?authuser=1

Roger Martin’s Video

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit longtermstrategy.substack.com/subscribe

Podcast: Play in new window | Download