On strategy as decision under constraint—and its frequent collapse into platitude.
38 essays
When corporate messaging detaches from operational truth, it becomes performative and ethically brittle. Leaders risk symbolic overreach, middle managers amplify unreality, and organisational silence sets in. The application of ethics and discernment offers a way to tether narrative to fact, reward
The Monty Hall paradox reveals a deeper truth about management: sticking with a failing strategy isn't brave—it's bad judgment. When new information changes the odds, smart leaders pivot. Whether it's dodging the sunk-cost fallacy or resisting the fear of looking inconsistent, knowing when to switch
Hype disconnects speech from reality and shields actors from the consequences of their decisions. Hype becomes not just a linguistic trend but an institutionalised habit of avoidance. When managers are no longer accountable for what they say—because what they say has no anchor in meaning—they become
Misused metrics distort behaviour, erode trust, and weaken goals. Used wisely—aligned with values, ethics, and systems thinking—they support better decisions and create environments where people and organisations can thrive.
Innovation drives growth only when balanced with organisational, ethical, and cultural frameworks. Pursued without restraint, it can erode values and stability. Sustainable innovation respects tradition and long-term purpose.
Adaptive leadership distinguishes technical problems from adaptive challenges that require learning and experimentation. It emphasises situational awareness, engagement, and shared leadership while preserving purpose and ethics, preparing organisations for change beyond reactive or static models.
True strategy requires deep analysis, clear choices, alignment, and continuous learning. Leaders must avoid vague goals and instead create actionable, coherent plans that drive real value and competitive advantage in a complex business environment. A case study of IKEA shows how this approached was
Much of what passes for "strategy" is platitude dressed as direction. A real strategy is specific, actionable, and tied to organisational goals. The difference is rigorous analysis and the willingness to make hard choices.
In planning, hope often crowds out critical thinking as leaders chase the next project as the imagined fix. Seen in publishing’s “green awning effect,” this bias favours new ideas over hard lessons from history. Better strategy comes from learning what already failed.
The first in a series on learning from history and its value for organisational decision-making. Today, those who draw lessons from the past risk being labelled “on the wrong side of history,” much as dissenters in business face exile for challenging dominant narratives.
When we judge the principle 'be right a lot' on inputs rather than outcomes we can make rational choices about the future, secure in the knowledge that we have positioned rather than predicted our future, that our future is based on skill and not luck, and that we are people worth following.
Although we cannot know what tomorrow brings, we can use a pattern recognition approach to lower risk and devise stronger strategies. This is because while it is nearly impossible for us to predict one specific future, we can confidently position for multiple probable futures.
John Boyd’s OODA Loop—observe, orient, decide, act—highlights agility, context, and speed in decision-making. Challenging linear models, it shows why adaptive thinking is critical to leadership and organisational success.
Governance allocates authority, responsibility, and decision rights. When it is remote or sealed off from scrutiny, power goes unchecked, accountability erodes, and resource decisions become arbitrary and subjective.
Reframing so-called “negative” people as pragmatists exposes unchecked optimism as a driver of the sunk cost fallacy—loss aversion, ego, and false hope. Drop the Kool-Aid, face reality, and better decisions come into view.