Updated 5 days ago
by Richard P. Rumelt
A good strategy has an essential logical structure called the Kernel.
The kernel of a strategy contains three elements:
The most basic idea of strategy is the application of strength against weakness or strength applied against most promising opportunity
The standard modern treatment of strategy has expanded this idea into a rich discussion of potential strengths, called advantages.
In my understadning this means/its like: Meta applying its strengths of software development and VR headsets, into promising blockchain enabled opportunities to generate even more Metaverse hype today. (Strength + Promising opportunity = Strategy)
That is a midlevel framework which misses two huge, incredibly important natural sources of strength
Having conflicting goals, dedicating resources to unconnected targets and accomodating incompatible interests are luxuries of the rich
I believe this description the author uses may apply to large corporations as well. Internally teams may have conflicting goals in forcing an specific approach to working-style or strategy. Good strategy requires leaders to say no to a wide variety of actions and interests.
Strategy is at least as much about what an organization does not do as it is about what it does.
Was anything I wrote confusing, outdated, or incorrect? Please let me know! Just write a few words below and I’ll be sure to amend this post with your suggestions.
If you want to know about new posts, add your email below. Alternatively, you can subscribe with RSS.