strategy-kernel

name

strategy-kernel

description

Pressure-test or write a real strategy using Richard Rumelt's Good Strategy/Bad Strategy kernel (diagnosis, guiding policy, coherent action) and detect the four tells of bad strategy (fluff, failure to face the challenge, goals-mistaken-for-strategy, mush). Use when someone asks for a strategy, a strategic plan, an OKR/vision review, 'what's our strategy for X', when a plan reads like a wish list, or when reviewing a deck/doc that claims to be strategy but might just be goals. Also use to turn a vague ambition into a concrete strategy with a real edge.

strategy-kernel

Most documents called "strategy" are not strategy. They are a vision statement, a stack of financial targets, and a list of initiatives, glued together with ambition. Richard Rumelt's core insight: a strategy is a way through a difficulty, an approach to overcoming an obstacle. If there is no named obstacle and no coherent way through it, there is no strategy, no matter how inspiring the deck.

This skill does two jobs:

1. Diagnose an existing "strategy" and tell the truth about whether it is one.
2. Build a real strategy from a situation using the kernel.

The kernel (Rumelt)

Every good strategy has three parts. Write them in this order, never skip one.

1. Diagnosis. What is actually going on? Name the single most important challenge or obstacle. Cut through the noise of the situation to the crux. A good diagnosis is often a metaphor or a reframe that makes the path forward suddenly obvious ("we are not a search company, we are being disrupted by mobile"). If you cannot state the challenge in a sentence or two, you do not understand it yet.

2. Guiding policy. The overall approach chosen to cope with or overcome the obstacle named in the diagnosis. It is a signpost, not a goal. It rules things OUT. It creates advantage by concentrating effort. "Compete on integrated logistics, not on price" is a guiding policy. "Be number one in the market" is not — it names no approach.

3. Coherent actions. The concrete steps, coordinated with one another, that carry out the guiding policy. "Coherent" is the operative word: the actions must reinforce each other and not fight for the same resources or pull in opposite directions. A list of independent initiatives that each sound good but do not compound is not coherent action.

The power of a strategy comes from coherence and concentration, not from the individual cleverness of any one action. A mediocre action that fits the policy beats a brilliant action that contradicts it.

The source of power

Before you finalize a strategy, name its source of leverage — the reason this approach can actually work when effort is concentrated on it. Rumelt's proximate examples:

• Leverage: anticipation + a pivot point + concentrated application of effort. Where can a focused push produce an outsized result?
• Proximate objectives: pick a target close enough to be feasible. Strategy that reaches for the moon with no ladder is fantasy. Reduce ambiguity into something the org can actually do next.
• Chain-link systems: when performance is limited by the weakest link, incremental improvement of any single link is wasted. Either fix the whole chain together or find a different battle. (This is also why some competitors are safe from imitation — their advantage is a tightly-linked system, not one copyable feature.)
• Design over parts: a strategy is a design, where the fit between parts matters more than the parts. Tight integration buys more power but is more fragile and less flexible; loose integration is robust but weaker. Choose deliberately.

If you cannot articulate WHY concentrating effort here creates advantage, you have a plan, not a strategy.

The four tells of BAD strategy

When auditing a document, scan for these. Any one present is a red flag; the presence of several means it is not a strategy at all.

1. Fluff. Gaseous abstraction and inflated language dressed up as insight. Buzzwords used to create the illusion of high-level thinking. Tell: strip the jargon and restate the sentence plainly. If nothing is left, it was fluff. ("We leverage a customer-centric synergistic platform" → "we have a website.")

2. Failure to face the challenge. The document never names the actual obstacle. You cannot evaluate a strategy or improve it if the challenge is undefined. If a "strategy" does not identify the difficulty it is trying to overcome, it is either a hope or a target, not a strategy.

3. Mistaking goals for strategy. A list of desires and financial targets ("grow 20%, be the market leader, delight customers") stated as if wanting them makes them happen. Goals describe the destination. Strategy is the route and the vehicle. Ambition is not a plan.

4. Bad strategic objectives. Objectives that are a "dog's dinner" — a long scatter list of things to do with no priority (blue-sky, everything-is-important), or objectives that are impracticable, disconnected from any real problem. A good objective is proximate and resolves ambiguity; a bad one adds to it.

Bad strategy is not just the absence of good strategy. It has an internal logic: it skips the hard analytical work of diagnosis, avoids naming the obstacle (because naming it means admitting some things are hard or some cherished projects must be cut), and substitutes a template of Vision + Mission + Values + goals. Template-style strategy is a tell in itself.

How to run this skill

Mode A — audit an existing "strategy"

1. Read the document. Extract, verbatim where possible, anything that claims to be the strategy.
2. Try to map it onto the kernel: is there a diagnosis? a guiding policy? coherent actions? Most will be missing at least one — usually the diagnosis.
3. Run the four-tells scan. Quote the specific sentences that are fluff / goals-as-strategy / etc. Do not hand-wave; point at the line.
4. Deliver the verdict plainly: is this a strategy, or is it goals + fluff? Where exactly does it break?
5. Reconstruct. Offer what the real diagnosis probably is, and sketch a guiding policy that would actually address it. This is the constructive payoff — do not stop at criticism.

Mode B — build a strategy from a situation

1. Gather the situation. What's happening, what's hard, what's changing, what resources and constraints exist. Ask for what you're missing rather than inventing it.
2. Write the diagnosis. Force it to one or two sentences naming the crux. Try a reframe or metaphor; the right diagnosis usually makes the path feel obvious. Test it: does it explain why the obvious moves haven't worked?
3. Choose a guiding policy that concentrates effort against that crux and rules things out. State what you will NOT do. A policy that rules nothing out is fluff.
4. Name the source of power (leverage, proximate objective, chain-link fix, or design coherence). Why does focusing here win?
5. Lay out coherent actions — a short, coordinated set that reinforce each other. Check each against the policy; cut any that don't fit, even good ones. Kill the dog's-dinner list.
6. Stress-test. Re-run the four tells against your own output. Would a skeptic say this is just goals dressed up? Fix it before shipping.

Output format

Lead with the verdict or the kernel, not preamble. A useful deliverable:

DIAGNOSIS: <one or two sentences naming the crux>
GUIDING POLICY: <the chosen approach; what it rules out>
SOURCE OF POWER: <why concentrating here creates advantage>
COHERENT ACTIONS:
  - <action that carries out the policy>
  - <action that reinforces the first>
  - <action that reinforces both>
WHAT WE ARE NOT DOING: <the sacrifices — a strategy with no sacrifices is a wish list>

For an audit, add a short WHY THE CURRENT VERSION ISN'T STRATEGY section quoting the specific failing lines.

Pitfalls

• The hardest part is the diagnosis, and it's the part everyone skips. If you find yourself rushing to actions, stop and go back. Actions without a diagnosis are activity, not strategy.
• Concentration feels uncomfortable. A good strategy says no to real opportunities. If your strategy offends no one and cuts nothing, it isn't concentrating force, which means it has no force.
• Do not confuse a good strategy with an ambitious one. Reaching further is not strategy; the gap between ambition and capability is exactly what a strategy has to bridge.
• Coherence beats brilliance. Reject a clever action that fights the policy. Keep a plain action that fits it.

Source

Based on Richard P. Rumelt, Good Strategy / Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters (2011). The kernel (diagnosis / guiding policy / coherent action), the four hallmarks of bad strategy, and the sources of power (leverage, proximate objectives, chain-link systems, design) are Rumelt's framework.