Good Strategy Bad Strategy: what makes it different from other strategy books

Many talk about strategy. Very few think strategically. And almost no one exposes you to how it is formulated or happens in practice.

Until Richard Rumelt appears.

He doesn't take you by the hand. It gives you a path of exploration and analysis.

He doesn't underestimate you, nor does he write for everyone. Assume you have internal structures and scaffolding to support the higher thinking it offers.

Avoid simple formulas. The boxes to complete. Escape from SMART objectives, SWOT analysis, growth matrices and checklist-type steps...

It breaks all of that and leaves you with no comfortable answers or shortcuts.

Offers a complex, challenging book:

Rumelt shows you how a strategist thinks... and leaves you alone, naked, in front of the mirror.

To think strategically—from Rumelt—is to commit to one's own, uncomfortable and brave reading of the terrain.

Why does so much strategy sound good and not work?

Because it is poorly conceptualized and understood from the beginning.

And because there are a series of incentives that distort it:

* The need to show immediate action.

* The pressure to look good to investors or boards of directors.

* The desire to dress any initiative as strategic to gain internal legitimacy.

The result is predictable: Desires or vision are confused with diagnosis. Objectives with real decisions. Slogans with design.

And the most serious thing: the real problem is not addressed. It surrounds itself. He disguises himself. It is made up with euphemisms and is shot with scattered actions.

That is what Rumelt defines as Bad Strategy: An illusion of clarity, loaded with values, colorful phrases and politically correct words... ...but without focus, without real direction, without a system that generates effect.

And that—to be honest—is what is repeated in too many corporate plans, strategic presentations and roadmaps of startups, driven by an ecosystem that prioritizes continuous rounds over updating methodologically to create real companies.

Entire ecosystems that push their founders to copy the form, without questioning the substance.

Or corporations where the diagnosis and the focus of the strategy are diluted in the name of inclusion, because everyone must contribute something, and no one dares to say: this doesn't add up.

• ? What makes this book different?

In my opinion, three things make it stand out:

1. Strategy as systemic design, not as a plan

It's not about having many ideas. It is about designing a living strategic structure, where each part fits, reinforces, and multiplies the effect.

* Actions are not the implementation—they are a central part of the design. They are aligned, feed each other and reinforce the guiding policy.

* The focus is not an exercise in simplification: it is a deliberate renunciation to concentrate power.

* A leverage point is sought where a well-designed intervention generates a disproportionate impact. That is the real strategic bet, taking advantage of our advantages.

The result is not a plan, it is a system with form, direction and internal tension. A design worth committing to.

2. Policy guides as a hypothesis, not as a slogan

The most powerful thing about the book—and probably the least understood—is that guiding policy is not an inspiring statement, nor an aspirational promise.

It is a specific strategic bet. An action hypothesis about where and how to intervene in the system to generate the greatest possible impact.

It's not a phrase that sounds good. It is a decision that concentrates the effort.

And like any hypothesis, it must be able to be tested.

* It must be clear enough to evaluate it with facts.

* Specific enough to establish what we do and what we stop doing.

* Flexible enough to adapt if the context changes.

A good guide policy does not give you security. It gives you clear direction as you navigate uncertainty. It tells you where to bet and makes clear everything we won't do.

This way of thinking about strategy—as a living hypothesis and not as a static statement—is transformative.

3. Thought as a discipline

Rumelt not only challenges you to think well. It requires you to review how you think.

* Avoid quick closures.

* Disable mental shortcuts (comfortable or installed heuristics).

* Sustain ambiguity without giving in to cynicism.

* Formulate your own hypotheses and stress them.

* Develop internal structures that allow you to see without depending on external noise.

Because thinking strategically is not a technical skill. It is maintaining one's own direction while everything else moves. And to be able to intervene, act with clarity, even when there is no certainty.

It is not a comfortable book (and that is okay)

And yet, it is transformative.

Because once you understand it, it leaves you with a question that you can no longer ignore: Is what I'm doing... a real strategy?

Has a book ever made you productively uncomfortable?

One that messed you up and then gave you more clarity. Which one was it? Tell me below. And if this article resonated with you, feel free to share it with someone who is leading...

See you on Saturday. And if not, we continue reading.