At some point in your working life, someone told you to take ownership. Maybe it was a manager setting expectations. Maybe it was feedback after something went wrong. Maybe it was in a job description, or a performance review, or a leadership development session where the facilitator said it with enough conviction that the room nodded. Take ownership. Step up. Own it. The instruction is everywhere. The definition is almost nowhere. ...
The strategy session happened. The priorities were set. The presentation was made to the wider team. Six months later, your senior managers are still making the same kinds of decisions they were making before. The priorities you thought were clear are being interpreted differently at different levels. The direction you set is visible in your team’s work but increasingly hard to find in the work of the layers below them. ...
Most managers have sat through a strategy presentation. The CEO or the MD stands at the front of the room. There are slides. There is a direction. There is language about priorities and focus and where the company is going. People nod. Someone asks a question. The meeting ends. And then everyone goes back to their desks and does roughly what they were doing before. Not because the strategy was wrong. Not because the people in the room stopped caring. But because nobody told them what any of it had to do with them specifically — with their team, their decisions, their work on a given Tuesday. ...
You have already paid for strategy work. A workshop. A consultant. A business model canvas, a SWOT analysis, a competitor review, a pricing strategy, a marketing strategy. Maybe all of them. And six months later, the organisation was running roughly the same as before. Except now there was a document somewhere confirming it shouldn’t be. It wasn’t worth it. That feeling is not wrong. The conclusion usually is. Before we get to what went wrong, there is one more thing worth naming. ...
Here is a question worth sitting with before the next quarter begins. Are you building a business, or are you holding a job? The two look identical from the outside for a long time. Both have revenue. Both have staff. Both have a founder who works hard and cares deeply about what they have built. The difference is not visible in the accounts. It is not visible in the org chart. It becomes visible at the moments of transition — when the founder steps back, when someone new comes in, when the company is being evaluated by someone who has no relationship with the person who built it. ...
Everything is strategic these days. Strategic priorities. Strategic hires. Strategic partnerships. Strategic pivots. The word is everywhere. And somewhere along the way, someone told you that you need a strategy. Maybe a mentor. Maybe an investor. Maybe a consultant. Maybe you read it somewhere. But nobody explained why. Not clearly. Not in a way that made you think — yes, that is exactly what I am missing and I understand now what having it would change. Usually it was more like: successful companies have strategies, therefore you should have one too. Which is not an explanation. It is a prescription without a diagnosis. ...
The first four essays in this series were all about the same thing, approached from different angles. A company with a claim that didn’t survive thirty minutes of research. A marketing agency writing posts for clients who refused to discuss strategy. An investor who said nothing, moved to the next meeting, and was never heard from again. An apple that looked perfect while the quality had already been irreversibly gone for thirty years. ...
There is a pattern that repeats in founder-led companies. The leadership team goes offsite. They spend two or three days working through market position, competitive dynamics, growth priorities. They produce a plan. They return to the organisation and present it. Strategy has been done. Six months later, the plan is not being followed. The founder is frustrated. The team is confused. The diagnosis is usually execution failure — the organisation could not translate the strategy into action. ...
Strategy is not as complicated as people think it is. Strip away the frameworks, the workshops, the strategy decks, and what remains is something every leader already does every day. Strategy is making intentional, consequential choices under constraints. That is it. The student who cannot study every subject equally and has to decide where to invest their limited hours before the exam is making strategic choices. The athlete who has to choose which strengths to emphasise and which opponent weaknesses to target is making strategic choices. The founder deciding which market to enter, which clients to serve, and which opportunities to decline in order to focus is making strategic choices. ...
The brief was straightforward. A LinkedIn post. Something that would show the market they were active, thinking, growing. Something polished and credible by the end of the week. I asked what they were trying to build. The conversation stopped. “We don’t want to talk about that. That’s not relevant. We just want the LinkedIn post.” This was not an unusual client. That sentence, or a version of it, is one of the most common things I heard in that period, working inside a marketing agency, helping companies communicate who they are to the markets they want to reach. ...