Leading with Strategy by Timothy Tiryaki Using Your North Star to Guide Decision-Making
What's it about?
Leading with Strategy (2026) is a guide to strategic decision-making for leaders navigating the complexity of today's rapidly changing business landscape. It argues that effective strategy requires more than analytical frameworks; it requires a clear sense of organizational purpose, and a commitment to implementing that purpose at every level and across every team of an organization.
Your strategy is probably failing.
Failing to fix your organization’s overarching problems. Failing to permeate its operating systems. Failing to underpin all the decisions, big and small, that ultimately make up your organization’s strategic direction.
But, here’s the good news. It’s not failing because of bad ideas or lack of vision. It’s failing because it’s falling into the gaps between thinking and doing, vision and culture, stated priorities and daily behavior.
This lesson won’t just diagnose why your strategy isn’t reaching its full potential, it will give you the tools to implement strategy with optimum impact. These tools include elements such as distributing strategic thinking, building cultures that carry strategy forward, and developing the capacity to turn challenges and paradoxes to your strategic advantage.
Let’s get started.
Let’s start with a short tale of corporate dysfunction that’s unfortunately all too common.
After months of iteration and improvements, a great new product is finally ready to hit the market. A VP strides into the boardroom, sets a bold direction for the launch, and hands it off to middle managers — satisfied, energized, certain of victory. But somewhere between that glass-walled conference room and the people actually doing the work, something goes wrong. The strategy gets filtered, diluted, misinterpreted — passed down like a game of telephone until it barely resembles the original vision. Six months later, the launch limps across the finish line, budgets are blown, and everyone's pointing fingers. The VP's bold vision? It evaporated somewhere between the boardroom and the delivery team — and nobody can quite explain how.
It’s a story that begs the question of who should have ultimate ownership over strategy in an organization: the leaders who envision it or the managers who execute it?
I’m not going to tell you the answer to that. I am going to tell you why it’s the wrong question to ask in the first place. The old-school split between leadership and management, a split that’s, let’s face it, embedded in corporate culture, separates the two crucial components of successful strategy: thinking and doing. When these two functions are siloed, strategy simply can’t succeed to its full potential.
Leadership and management shouldn’t be framed as opposing roles, but as interdependent skills. And strategy shouldn’t ‘belong’ to any one role. Instead, strategy should be seen as a dynamic, learnable craft and strategic leadership should be a distributed capability.
Maybe you’re nodding along. Or maybe (if, for example, your job title is something like Head of Strategy) you’re thinking that an organization where everyone has ownership over strategic direction sounds like a really bad idea. If your opinion is closer to the latter, here’s what you need to consider. Top-down strategy is a little bit like trickle-down economics. It’s not as effective as you think it is. A 2018 MIT study found that only 28% of middle managers could correctly name three of their organization's strategic priorities. That’s a problem that costs organizations their coherence, their agility, and ultimately their results. When people don't understand the strategy, they can't carry it forward. It's that simple.
So back to the product launch that fizzled out. The problem wasn't with the VP’s vision. And it wasn't with the middle managers who failed to carry it forward. The problem was a system that treated strategy as something to be handed down rather than built together. When strategic thinking is distributed across an organization, strategy doesn't evaporate between the boardroom and the delivery team.
Let’s try an experiment. Walk into an organization, and ask the first ten people you see what their company stands for. One of two things is guaranteed to happen. Either you get ten different answers, or you get ten identical versions of the same rehearsed answer which everyone has learned and no one actually believes in.
Both scenarios point to a serious gap in the corporate culture between stated values and lived values. And, not to be dramatic about it, but that gap is where strategy goes to die. This is because culture is more than a mission statement. It’s the invisible operating system that underpins every decision: what gets rewarded, what gets tolerated, and what gets buried. And if that operating system is running on outdated values or unspoken rules that contradict your stated strategy, no amount of bold vision from the boardroom will save you.
To bring strategic vision into alignment with everyday action, you have to close the gap between stated values and lived value. This happens in various ways: Leaders must model target behaviors visibly and consistently – not occasionally, not in town halls, but in the everyday. Hiring and promotion criteria must explicitly reflect cultural values to build teams that embody corporate values. Performance frameworks need to assess how results are achieved, because a culture that rewards outcomes regardless of behavior will always drift toward dysfunction. And feedback mechanisms must be functional, surfacing their findings and translating them into meaningful change.
Can closing the culture gap really drive strategy success? Well, it worked for Ford.
In 2006, the once-blue-chip company was hemorrhaging billions and seemingly headed for collapse. Then, Alan Mulally took the top job. He inherited a culture of concealment. Employees knew to expect retribution if they weren’t performing to standard, so they fudged numbers and faked success. When Mulally introduced weekly Business Plan Review meetings, leaders arrived with color-coded status charts showing almost everything as green. Green meant on track. When one executive, Mark Fields, finally showed a project in red, the room went silent. But Mulally applauded him. In doing so, he signaled that it was safe to fail and that honesty would be rewarded. The following week, the charts lit up with amber and red across the board. That cultural reset to safety and honesty, allowed Ford to tackle its problems head-on. The company returned to profitability without a government bailout, the only Detroit automaker to do so.
Alan Mulally achieved exceptional results, but also instructively demonstrated one of strategy’s core tenets: the culture carries the strategy. So ask yourself this: Is your culture working for your strategy or against it?
In 2012, JCPenney’s new CEO Ron Johnson embarked on an audacious rebrand. No more discounting. Now, the stores were framed as a collection of boutiques. It was, on paper, a great strategy. But it failed to take a pretty crucial data point into account: how JCPenney’s customers actually shopped at the retailer. The JCPenney customer was a bargain hunter – they wanted goods at a good price, nothing fancy. Post-rebrand sales collapsed by nearly $5 billion. This disaster didn’t happen because JCPenney’s executive team lacked vision, it happened because of a disconnect between the organization’s strategy and its lived reality.
That disconnect has a name: the strategy gap. It can be fatal, but with early diagnosis, you can stop that gap from turning into a JCPenney-style strategy chasm. Here’s how to do it:
First, map your strategy twice. Write down what your strategy says, then write down what your organization actually does. Take those two accounts side by side and then ask the hard questions. Who do you say your customers are? Who do you actually build for, sell to, and design around? What do you claim your edge is? What do your last five wins actually tell you about where you genuinely outperform? What values do you say guide your decisions? What do your last five difficult calls reveal about what you actually optimize for?
Do this honestly and three types of gaps tend to surface.
The first is an identity gap. This is where stated values and actual behavior have quietly diverged — the organization says one thing and does another. The second is a market gap. This is where the organization's picture of its customers has fallen out of date; it's built around who you used to serve rather than who you serve now. The third is a capability gap. This is where strategy has been built on strengths the organization assumes it has but can't actually demonstrate when tested against reality.
Once the gaps are visible, the question is where to start. Not every gap matters equally. The ones worth fixing first are those that undermine your value proposition — the core of what your organization exists to offer and why anyone should choose you over the alternative. Close those first. The rest can follow.
The audit won't give you a new strategy. But it will show you where your current strategy has drifted dangerously far from reality.
In the early 2000s, General Motors was losing market share to Toyota. Leadership responded tactically. They cut costs, launched new models, increased their marketing spend. But while they were zooming in on isolated problems, they failed to zoom out and see the bigger issues. Supplier relationships, manufacturing culture, dealer incentives, and product decisions were all quietly reinforcing each other's dysfunctions. Suppliers were kept at arm's length and played off against each other on price, producing cheaper parts that undermined quality. Dealers were incentivized to shift inventory rather than build customer relationships, eroding brand loyalty. And a culture of internal competition between divisions meant that lessons learned in one part of the business rarely travelled to another. By 2009, GM had filed for the largest industrial bankruptcy in American history.
Now, it's tempting to say that GM's leadership wasn't thinking strategically. But it isn’t true. Most strategic thinking is linear: identify the problem, find the cause, apply the solution. The problem is that organizations aren't linear. They're ecosystems. What GM's example teaches us is that strategic thinking needs to be supplemented with systems thinking – the ability to see an organization not as a set of separate problems to be solved, but as a web of interconnected elements that shape and reinforce each other.
Let’s try applying both approaches to the same problem: declining customer retention. Linear strategic thinking might trace it back to quality or pricing and look for a fix there. Systems thinking follows the chain. Declining retention hits revenue. Pressure on revenue triggers cost-cutting. Cost-cutting means less investment in the product. A weaker product drives more customers away. Suddenly what looked like a customer service problem reveals itself as a structural problem that requires an entirely different solution.
This kind of structural problem was exactly what Howard Schultz saw when he took the top job at Starbucks in 2008. He was faced with multiple issues: declining sales, weakening brand, falling service standards. But, applying systems thinking, Schultz identified that underneath all these problems was a self-reinforcing loop: aggressive expansion diluted the in-store experience, which eroded the brand, which accelerated customer defection, which drove cost-cutting, which diluted the in-store experience. Schultz broke the loop, closing 800 underperforming stores in one day. Within two years, the company had returned to growth.
Strategy sees the pieces. But systems thinking sees what connects them and understands where strategic solutions should be applied.
When it comes time to make decisions, leaders often need to sit with competing realities. Realities like ‘We need to move faster’. And ‘We can’t afford to get this wrong.’ And here’s how they usually handle it: they pick one truth and ignore the other, prioritizing speed or caution. Or they come up with a compromise that dilutes both: moving a little faster, and paying slightly more attention to detail. Neither move is satisfactory.
Those two truths, ‘We need to move faster’ and ‘We need to get this right’ pose a paradox. But most organizations treat paradoxes like dilemmas. A dilemma has a right answer. Should we enter this market or not? Should we acquire this company or build the capability ourselves? The tension is real but resolvable. A paradox is different. It presents competing truths or priorities – think efficiency and innovation, or stability and change – which are both valid. The tension between these truths can’t be resolved. It has to be managed.
Let's consider how two companies in the same industry responded (or failed to respond) to paradox. When digital streaming emerged, Blockbuster faced two competing truths: their store network was their core business, and their store network was becoming obsolete. They picked one and abandoned the other, pouring resources into physical retail while streaming was busy making retail irrelevant.
Netflix faced a similar tension as it scaled: algorithmic data was telling them what audiences wanted, but the shows that built their reputation were ones no algorithm would have greenlit. Rather than choosing between the two, they built a structure where both could coexist, using data to understand viewing behavior and inform commissioning decisions, while protecting the creative autonomy that allowed writers and directors to take risks the data would never have sanctioned. One company resolved the tension, and failed. The other embraced it, and thrived.
Adopting a paradox mindset won’t make your strategy simpler. But it will make it more honest, and better able to respond to the full complexity of the realities your organization is navigating.
When Paul O'Neill arrived as CEO of manufacturing giant Alcoa in 1987, analysts expected him to talk about margins and market share. Instead he announced that his singular strategic priority was zero workplace injuries. Shareholders were baffled. But O'Neill had seen something important about Alcoa's injury rate. It was a symptom of a deeper operational problem: the failures in communication, process discipline, and accountability that were causing accidents were the same failures causing defects, inefficiencies, and strategic drift. His core idea was if you fix the safety culture, you fix the operational infrastructure that strategy runs on. Within a year, Alcoa’s systems had been rebuilt around that single priority. Within a decade, its net income had quintupled.
O’Neill avoided a pitfall that plagues most strategic thinkers: strategizing at altitude. He understood that strategy isn’t the domain of the executive team only. Strategy that isn’t embedded in daily organizational behavior is strategy that is likely to fail.
So how can you ensure that your strategy doesn’t stay in the C-Suite?
To begin with, get granular, with action planning that descends from the strategic to the specific. For each strategic priority, identify the following: three to five decisions that have to be made in the next ninety days; the single person accountable for each; the concrete evidence that will measure progress.
Think in outcomes, not activities. “Improve our market positioning" is an activity. “Identify the two customer segments generating the most margin and redirect thirty percent of sales resource toward them by Q2" is an outcome. Thinking in outcomes is what will connect your strategic intent into your operational reality.
Stay accountable. Set objectives with measurable signals that confirm you're moving in the right direction. Review them quarterly. And after every significant strategic initiative, ask three questions: what did we intend, what actually happened, and what does the gap tell us? Not as performance management, but as data that feeds directly back into strategic thinking. Because strategy and execution aren't sequential. They're a continuous conversation.
In this lesson to Leading with Strategy by Timothy Tiryaki, you’ve learned that strategy doesn't fail at the point of conception. It fails in the gap between what organizations say and what they actually do. Closing those gaps requires organizations to think systemically rather than linearly, to hold competing truths in tension rather than resolving them too quickly, and to embed strategic thinking in every level of the organization, because strategy that isn't understood and owned by the people executing it isn't really a strategy at all.
Leading with Strategy (2026) is a guide to strategic decision-making for leaders navigating the complexity of today's rapidly changing business landscape. It argues that effective strategy requires more than analytical frameworks; it requires a clear sense of organizational purpose, and a commitment to implementing that purpose at every level and across every team of an organization.
Your strategy is probably failing.
Failing to fix your organization’s overarching problems. Failing to permeate its operating systems. Failing to underpin all the decisions, big and small, that ultimately make up your organization’s strategic direction.
But, here’s the good news. It’s not failing because of bad ideas or lack of vision. It’s failing because it’s falling into the gaps between thinking and doing, vision and culture, stated priorities and daily behavior.
This lesson won’t just diagnose why your strategy isn’t reaching its full potential, it will give you the tools to implement strategy with optimum impact. These tools include elements such as distributing strategic thinking, building cultures that carry strategy forward, and developing the capacity to turn challenges and paradoxes to your strategic advantage.
Let’s get started.
Let’s start with a short tale of corporate dysfunction that’s unfortunately all too common.
After months of iteration and improvements, a great new product is finally ready to hit the market. A VP strides into the boardroom, sets a bold direction for the launch, and hands it off to middle managers — satisfied, energized, certain of victory. But somewhere between that glass-walled conference room and the people actually doing the work, something goes wrong. The strategy gets filtered, diluted, misinterpreted — passed down like a game of telephone until it barely resembles the original vision. Six months later, the launch limps across the finish line, budgets are blown, and everyone's pointing fingers. The VP's bold vision? It evaporated somewhere between the boardroom and the delivery team — and nobody can quite explain how.
It’s a story that begs the question of who should have ultimate ownership over strategy in an organization: the leaders who envision it or the managers who execute it?
I’m not going to tell you the answer to that. I am going to tell you why it’s the wrong question to ask in the first place. The old-school split between leadership and management, a split that’s, let’s face it, embedded in corporate culture, separates the two crucial components of successful strategy: thinking and doing. When these two functions are siloed, strategy simply can’t succeed to its full potential.
Leadership and management shouldn’t be framed as opposing roles, but as interdependent skills. And strategy shouldn’t ‘belong’ to any one role. Instead, strategy should be seen as a dynamic, learnable craft and strategic leadership should be a distributed capability.
Maybe you’re nodding along. Or maybe (if, for example, your job title is something like Head of Strategy) you’re thinking that an organization where everyone has ownership over strategic direction sounds like a really bad idea. If your opinion is closer to the latter, here’s what you need to consider. Top-down strategy is a little bit like trickle-down economics. It’s not as effective as you think it is. A 2018 MIT study found that only 28% of middle managers could correctly name three of their organization's strategic priorities. That’s a problem that costs organizations their coherence, their agility, and ultimately their results. When people don't understand the strategy, they can't carry it forward. It's that simple.
So back to the product launch that fizzled out. The problem wasn't with the VP’s vision. And it wasn't with the middle managers who failed to carry it forward. The problem was a system that treated strategy as something to be handed down rather than built together. When strategic thinking is distributed across an organization, strategy doesn't evaporate between the boardroom and the delivery team.
Let’s try an experiment. Walk into an organization, and ask the first ten people you see what their company stands for. One of two things is guaranteed to happen. Either you get ten different answers, or you get ten identical versions of the same rehearsed answer which everyone has learned and no one actually believes in.
Both scenarios point to a serious gap in the corporate culture between stated values and lived values. And, not to be dramatic about it, but that gap is where strategy goes to die. This is because culture is more than a mission statement. It’s the invisible operating system that underpins every decision: what gets rewarded, what gets tolerated, and what gets buried. And if that operating system is running on outdated values or unspoken rules that contradict your stated strategy, no amount of bold vision from the boardroom will save you.
To bring strategic vision into alignment with everyday action, you have to close the gap between stated values and lived value. This happens in various ways: Leaders must model target behaviors visibly and consistently – not occasionally, not in town halls, but in the everyday. Hiring and promotion criteria must explicitly reflect cultural values to build teams that embody corporate values. Performance frameworks need to assess how results are achieved, because a culture that rewards outcomes regardless of behavior will always drift toward dysfunction. And feedback mechanisms must be functional, surfacing their findings and translating them into meaningful change.
Can closing the culture gap really drive strategy success? Well, it worked for Ford.
In 2006, the once-blue-chip company was hemorrhaging billions and seemingly headed for collapse. Then, Alan Mulally took the top job. He inherited a culture of concealment. Employees knew to expect retribution if they weren’t performing to standard, so they fudged numbers and faked success. When Mulally introduced weekly Business Plan Review meetings, leaders arrived with color-coded status charts showing almost everything as green. Green meant on track. When one executive, Mark Fields, finally showed a project in red, the room went silent. But Mulally applauded him. In doing so, he signaled that it was safe to fail and that honesty would be rewarded. The following week, the charts lit up with amber and red across the board. That cultural reset to safety and honesty, allowed Ford to tackle its problems head-on. The company returned to profitability without a government bailout, the only Detroit automaker to do so.
Alan Mulally achieved exceptional results, but also instructively demonstrated one of strategy’s core tenets: the culture carries the strategy. So ask yourself this: Is your culture working for your strategy or against it?
In 2012, JCPenney’s new CEO Ron Johnson embarked on an audacious rebrand. No more discounting. Now, the stores were framed as a collection of boutiques. It was, on paper, a great strategy. But it failed to take a pretty crucial data point into account: how JCPenney’s customers actually shopped at the retailer. The JCPenney customer was a bargain hunter – they wanted goods at a good price, nothing fancy. Post-rebrand sales collapsed by nearly $5 billion. This disaster didn’t happen because JCPenney’s executive team lacked vision, it happened because of a disconnect between the organization’s strategy and its lived reality.
That disconnect has a name: the strategy gap. It can be fatal, but with early diagnosis, you can stop that gap from turning into a JCPenney-style strategy chasm. Here’s how to do it:
First, map your strategy twice. Write down what your strategy says, then write down what your organization actually does. Take those two accounts side by side and then ask the hard questions. Who do you say your customers are? Who do you actually build for, sell to, and design around? What do you claim your edge is? What do your last five wins actually tell you about where you genuinely outperform? What values do you say guide your decisions? What do your last five difficult calls reveal about what you actually optimize for?
Do this honestly and three types of gaps tend to surface.
The first is an identity gap. This is where stated values and actual behavior have quietly diverged — the organization says one thing and does another. The second is a market gap. This is where the organization's picture of its customers has fallen out of date; it's built around who you used to serve rather than who you serve now. The third is a capability gap. This is where strategy has been built on strengths the organization assumes it has but can't actually demonstrate when tested against reality.
Once the gaps are visible, the question is where to start. Not every gap matters equally. The ones worth fixing first are those that undermine your value proposition — the core of what your organization exists to offer and why anyone should choose you over the alternative. Close those first. The rest can follow.
The audit won't give you a new strategy. But it will show you where your current strategy has drifted dangerously far from reality.
In the early 2000s, General Motors was losing market share to Toyota. Leadership responded tactically. They cut costs, launched new models, increased their marketing spend. But while they were zooming in on isolated problems, they failed to zoom out and see the bigger issues. Supplier relationships, manufacturing culture, dealer incentives, and product decisions were all quietly reinforcing each other's dysfunctions. Suppliers were kept at arm's length and played off against each other on price, producing cheaper parts that undermined quality. Dealers were incentivized to shift inventory rather than build customer relationships, eroding brand loyalty. And a culture of internal competition between divisions meant that lessons learned in one part of the business rarely travelled to another. By 2009, GM had filed for the largest industrial bankruptcy in American history.
Now, it's tempting to say that GM's leadership wasn't thinking strategically. But it isn’t true. Most strategic thinking is linear: identify the problem, find the cause, apply the solution. The problem is that organizations aren't linear. They're ecosystems. What GM's example teaches us is that strategic thinking needs to be supplemented with systems thinking – the ability to see an organization not as a set of separate problems to be solved, but as a web of interconnected elements that shape and reinforce each other.
Let’s try applying both approaches to the same problem: declining customer retention. Linear strategic thinking might trace it back to quality or pricing and look for a fix there. Systems thinking follows the chain. Declining retention hits revenue. Pressure on revenue triggers cost-cutting. Cost-cutting means less investment in the product. A weaker product drives more customers away. Suddenly what looked like a customer service problem reveals itself as a structural problem that requires an entirely different solution.
This kind of structural problem was exactly what Howard Schultz saw when he took the top job at Starbucks in 2008. He was faced with multiple issues: declining sales, weakening brand, falling service standards. But, applying systems thinking, Schultz identified that underneath all these problems was a self-reinforcing loop: aggressive expansion diluted the in-store experience, which eroded the brand, which accelerated customer defection, which drove cost-cutting, which diluted the in-store experience. Schultz broke the loop, closing 800 underperforming stores in one day. Within two years, the company had returned to growth.
Strategy sees the pieces. But systems thinking sees what connects them and understands where strategic solutions should be applied.
When it comes time to make decisions, leaders often need to sit with competing realities. Realities like ‘We need to move faster’. And ‘We can’t afford to get this wrong.’ And here’s how they usually handle it: they pick one truth and ignore the other, prioritizing speed or caution. Or they come up with a compromise that dilutes both: moving a little faster, and paying slightly more attention to detail. Neither move is satisfactory.
Those two truths, ‘We need to move faster’ and ‘We need to get this right’ pose a paradox. But most organizations treat paradoxes like dilemmas. A dilemma has a right answer. Should we enter this market or not? Should we acquire this company or build the capability ourselves? The tension is real but resolvable. A paradox is different. It presents competing truths or priorities – think efficiency and innovation, or stability and change – which are both valid. The tension between these truths can’t be resolved. It has to be managed.
Let's consider how two companies in the same industry responded (or failed to respond) to paradox. When digital streaming emerged, Blockbuster faced two competing truths: their store network was their core business, and their store network was becoming obsolete. They picked one and abandoned the other, pouring resources into physical retail while streaming was busy making retail irrelevant.
Netflix faced a similar tension as it scaled: algorithmic data was telling them what audiences wanted, but the shows that built their reputation were ones no algorithm would have greenlit. Rather than choosing between the two, they built a structure where both could coexist, using data to understand viewing behavior and inform commissioning decisions, while protecting the creative autonomy that allowed writers and directors to take risks the data would never have sanctioned. One company resolved the tension, and failed. The other embraced it, and thrived.
Adopting a paradox mindset won’t make your strategy simpler. But it will make it more honest, and better able to respond to the full complexity of the realities your organization is navigating.
When Paul O'Neill arrived as CEO of manufacturing giant Alcoa in 1987, analysts expected him to talk about margins and market share. Instead he announced that his singular strategic priority was zero workplace injuries. Shareholders were baffled. But O'Neill had seen something important about Alcoa's injury rate. It was a symptom of a deeper operational problem: the failures in communication, process discipline, and accountability that were causing accidents were the same failures causing defects, inefficiencies, and strategic drift. His core idea was if you fix the safety culture, you fix the operational infrastructure that strategy runs on. Within a year, Alcoa’s systems had been rebuilt around that single priority. Within a decade, its net income had quintupled.
O’Neill avoided a pitfall that plagues most strategic thinkers: strategizing at altitude. He understood that strategy isn’t the domain of the executive team only. Strategy that isn’t embedded in daily organizational behavior is strategy that is likely to fail.
So how can you ensure that your strategy doesn’t stay in the C-Suite?
To begin with, get granular, with action planning that descends from the strategic to the specific. For each strategic priority, identify the following: three to five decisions that have to be made in the next ninety days; the single person accountable for each; the concrete evidence that will measure progress.
Think in outcomes, not activities. “Improve our market positioning" is an activity. “Identify the two customer segments generating the most margin and redirect thirty percent of sales resource toward them by Q2" is an outcome. Thinking in outcomes is what will connect your strategic intent into your operational reality.
Stay accountable. Set objectives with measurable signals that confirm you're moving in the right direction. Review them quarterly. And after every significant strategic initiative, ask three questions: what did we intend, what actually happened, and what does the gap tell us? Not as performance management, but as data that feeds directly back into strategic thinking. Because strategy and execution aren't sequential. They're a continuous conversation.
In this lesson to Leading with Strategy by Timothy Tiryaki, you’ve learned that strategy doesn't fail at the point of conception. It fails in the gap between what organizations say and what they actually do. Closing those gaps requires organizations to think systemically rather than linearly, to hold competing truths in tension rather than resolving them too quickly, and to embed strategic thinking in every level of the organization, because strategy that isn't understood and owned by the people executing it isn't really a strategy at all.
Comments
Post a Comment