The Seven Strategy Deficits: Why Smart Organizations Create Predictably Bad Strategies
Part 2 in the Strategy Gap Series
The strategy looked perfect on paper. Comprehensive analysis. Clear objectives. Detailed implementation roadmap. The board approved it unanimously. Eighteen months later, it had failed completely. But here's what the post-mortem missed: the strategy was fundamentally flawed before a single implementation step began. It suffered from what we call Strategy Deficits - systematic patterns of dysfunction that render even flawless execution insufficient for success. This is the uncomfortable truth from our analysis of over 200 business and public strategies: most strategic failures aren't execution problems. They're formulation problems that execution can never fix.
The Anatomy of Strategic Failure
Part 1 of this series exposed the Execution Myth—the dangerous belief that strategic failures stem from poor implementation rather than flawed strategies. We demonstrated that while 75% of executives recognize different challenges require different approaches, only 25% actually adapt their methods accordingly. This raises a critical question: why do highly capable organizations consistently generate strategies fundamentally misaligned with their contexts? Our comprehensive analysis reveals seven recurring patterns that systematically undermine effectiveness before execution begins.
What are the Strategy Deficits?
“Strategy Deficits are fundamental flaws in strategies themselves that render even flawless implementation insufficient for success. These systematic patterns of strategic dysfunction undermine effectiveness before execution begins, manifesting as incomplete, outdated, unrealistic, wrong, inconsistent, ambiguous, or performative strategies.”
Strategy Deficits manifest through two pathways:
Awareness Deficits (Deficits 1-4): Organizations create incomplete, outdated, unrealistic, or wrong strategies because they lack knowledge of appropriate alternatives. They don't know what they don't know.
Selection Deficits (Deficits 5-7): Organizations create inconsistent, ambiguous, or performative strategies despite having access to better approaches. They know better but default to familiar or politically safe options. Understanding this distinction reveals why closing the Strategy Gap requires both expanding knowledge infrastructure AND overcoming cognitive and institutional barriers.
The Strategy Deficit Framework: Systematic Patterns of Strategic Dysfunction
The seven Strategy Deficits represent the most common ways organizations create strategies that are destined to fail, regardless of how well they're executed. Understanding these patterns is the first step toward building strategies that actually work.
Table 1: The 7 Strategy Deficits
Deficit 1: Incomplete Strategy
Incomplete strategies present compelling visions but lack coherent logic connecting choices, trade-offs, and implementation pathways. These strategies may satisfy governance requirements for "strategic thinking" while providing insufficient guidance for meaningful action.
Manifestation Pattern:
Incomplete strategies present compelling visions and ambitious goals but lack the coherent strategic logic connecting strategic choices to intended outcomes. These strategies articulate aspirational endpoints ("become the market leader," "achieve operational excellence," "drive digital transformation") without explaining the causal mechanisms for reaching them. They satisfy governance requirements for "having a strategy" while providing insufficient guidance for meaningful action or resource allocation decisions.
Root Cause Analysis:
Root Cause Analysis:
This deficit emerges primarily from knowledge barriers (Level 2) reinforced by institutional barriers (Level 3) and cognitive barriers (Level 1):
Knowledge Barriers: Organizations lack exposure to comprehensive strategy architecture frameworks that systematically connect vision through causal logic to implementation pathways. Many business education emphasizes high-level strategic positioning (competitive analysis, portfolio management, vision articulation) without corresponding depth in developing rigorous causal mechanisms. The velocity gap between strategy tool proliferation and selection framework development (explored in Part 5) means organizations have access to new strategy frameworks without accompanying methodologies for help them select from them.
Institutional Barriers: Some governance processes reward strategy documents that satisfy formal requirements over strategies that provide actionable guidance. Some boards evaluate strategies based on comprehensiveness of analysis and ambition of targets rather than clarity of strategic logic - a manifestation of the legitimacy trap (detailed in Part 6). Template-based planning processes mandate predetermined sections (vision, mission, goals, initiatives) without requiring explicit articulation of causal mechanisms, reflecting template tyranny that prioritizes bureaucratic compliance over strategic substance.
Cognitive Contribution: Optimism bias (explored in Part 4) leads strategists to assume implementation pathways are "obvious" once direction is set, underestimating the guidance required for coordinated organizational action. Abstract thinking preferences cause executives to remain comfortable at conceptual levels without drilling into operational specificity, a form of cognitive rigidity that treats high-level strategy as sufficient.
Diagnostic Indicators:
Strategy documents emphasize desired outcomes without explaining HOW choices create results
Multiple strategic priorities exist without clear hierarchy, sequencing, or trade-off analysis
Absence of explicit assumptions about market dynamics, competitive responses, or customer behavior
Generic language that could apply to any organization in the sector with minor modifications
Implementation plans list activities without connecting them to strategic logic
Strategy discussions focus on WHAT to achieve rather than HOW value will be created
Case Example: A public sector agency's strategy to "transform citizen services through digital innovation" included ambitious targets for online service adoption but lacked analysis of citizen behavior patterns, change management requirements, or technology integration challenges. The strategy provided inspirational direction but no actionable pathway for transformation.
Deficit 2: Outdated Strategy
Outdated strategies were contextually appropriate when first developed but persist despite fundamental environmental changes. Organizations continue following strategic approaches that made sense historically while ignoring signals that underlying conditions have shifted dramatically.
Manifestation Pattern:
Outdated strategies were contextually appropriate when first developed but persist despite fundamental environmental changes that have invalidated their underlying strategic logic. Organizations continue following strategic approaches designed for previous market conditions - applying industry-focused competitive strategies in ecosystem-driven markets, using linear planning models despite increasing complexity and uncertainty, or maintaining product-centric approaches after platform dynamics have emerged. Strategy formulation cycles refine and optimize inherited approaches rather than questioning whether the fundamental strategic logic remains relevant.
Root Cause Analysis:
This deficit stems from all three barrier levels working in combination:
Cognitive Barriers (Level 1): Status quo bias and anchoring effects (detailed in Part 4) cause leaders to overweight past success patterns, creating psychological resistance to questioning previously effective approaches. Confirmation bias then reinforces outdated assumptions by filtering out contradictory market signals. Attribution bias leads executives to credit their historical strategic approaches for success rather than recognizing favorable environmental conditions, making them psychologically invested in continuing those approaches even as contexts shift. The combination creates cognitive rigidity where mental models become strategic prisons.
Knowledge Barriers (Level 2): Organizations lack systematic frameworks for detecting environmental regime shifts that invalidate existing strategic logic - a gap in the strategy tool inventory (Part 5). Without explicit methods for challenging fundamental premises, strategy formulation planning cycles perpetuate rather than question inherited assumptions. The educational exposure crisis means many executives have never learned approaches designed for detecting and responding to contextual transitions, leaving them without mental models for strategic obsolescence.
Institutional Barriers (Level 3): Organizational identity and culture become tied to historical strategic approaches, creating institutional inertia. Boards reward consistency and predictability over adaptation, making strategy revision politically risky—the legitimacy trap (Part 6) in action. The institutional memory embedded in processes, metrics, and incentive systems systematically resists strategic reorientation even when environmental conditions demand it. Temporal misalignment between institutionalized planning cycles and environmental change pace locks organizations into outdated rhythms.
Diagnostic Indicators:
Strategy approach unchanged despite significant environmental shifts
Strategic assumptions date from previous competitive era or market structure
Strategy formulation processes emphasize incremental refinement over fundamental reassessment
References to past successes dominate strategic discussions more than future opportunities
Weak signals contradicting current strategic logic are dismissed as "temporary disruptions"
Strategy advocates defend approaches with "this worked before" rather than "this fits current conditions"
Competitors using fundamentally different strategic approaches are gaining advantage
Case Example: Traditional media companies continued applying content portfolio strategies designed for linear broadcasting even as digital platforms fundamentally altered content consumption patterns, distribution mechanisms, and monetization models. Strategic planning processes refined existing approaches rather than questioning their continued relevance.
Deficit 3: Unrealistic Strategy
Unrealistic strategies ignore internal constraints including organizational capabilities, resource limitations, cultural readiness, or change capacity. These strategies assume transformation capabilities that simply do not exist within current organizational realities.
Manifestation Pattern:
Unrealistic strategies set ambitious targets that ignore fundamental constraints in organizational capabilities, resource availability, cultural readiness, or change capacity. These strategies assume transformation capabilities that do not exist within current organizational realities - for example proposing 18-month digital transformations in organizations lacking basic data infrastructure, planning rapid market expansion without adequate capital, or designing innovation programs in risk-averse cultures. The gap between strategic requirements and organizational capacity ensures implementation failure regardless of execution quality.
Root Cause Analysis:
This deficit reflects cognitive barriers (Level 1) combined with knowledge barriers (Level 2):
Cognitive Barriers: Planning fallacy and overconfidence bias (explored comprehensively in Part 4) cause systematic underestimation of time, costs, and complexity required for strategic change. Leaders overestimate organizational capabilities and underestimate transformation challenges through a combination of optimism bias and the Newtonian-Cartesian mindset that assumes linear, predictable change trajectories. These biases are amplified in group settings where optimism becomes socially reinforced and challenging feasibility assumptions is culturally discouraged. Attribution bias from past successes creates inflated confidence in the organization's ability to execute ambitious transformations.
Knowledge Barriers: Organizations lack rigorous frameworks for capability assessment and change capacity analysis - a critical gap in the strategy tool inventory (Part 5). Strategy formulation processes emphasize aspirational goal-setting without systematic evaluation of organizational readiness. The competency development crisis means most strategists haven't been trained in strategy evaluation, leaving them without systematic approaches for validating strategic achievability.
Institutional Contribution: Performance pressure and the strategic theater phenomenon (Part 6) incentivize ambitious targets that satisfy board expectations regardless of realistic achievability. Legitimacy pressures reward optimistic projections over honest capability assessment, as conservative strategies are perceived as lacking ambition or vision.
Diagnostic Indicators:
Transformation timelines ignore change management complexity and learning curves
Required capabilities significantly exceed current organizational competencies
Financial commitments unrealistic given competing priorities and capital constraints
Cultural assumptions incompatible with deeply embedded organizational norms
Change velocity exceeds demonstrated organizational change capacity
Strategy requires simultaneous changes across multiple organizational dimensions
Middle management privately expresses skepticism about feasibility despite public support
Case Example: A manufacturing company's digital transformation strategy assumed rapid adoption of data analytics capabilities across all business units within 18 months, despite limited data infrastructure, minimal analytical skills, and strong cultural resistance to performance measurement. The strategy failed not due to poor execution but unrealistic assumptions about organizational change capacity.
Deficit 4: Wrong Strategy
Wrong strategies represent fundamental misdiagnosis of strategic challenges, applying inappropriate frameworks to environmental conditions. This deficit occurs when organizations use planning-based approaches for emergent challenges or analytical frameworks for creative problems.
Manifestation Pattern:
Wrong strategies represent fundamental misdiagnosis of strategic challenges, applying frameworks designed for stable, predictable environments to volatile, complex, uncertain, ambiguous (VUCA) contexts requiring approaches suitable for these VUCA environments such strategic flexibility, strategic resilience, and strategic agility. Organizations use analytical planning methods when experimentation is needed, apply competitive positioning frameworks to ecosystem challenges requiring collaboration, or deploy efficiency optimization strategies when innovation and exploration are required. The strategy approach itself - not its execution - is contextually inappropriate, creating a mismatch between methodology and environmental characteristics.
Root Cause Analysis:
This deficit represents the Strategy Gap's most direct manifestation, caused by all three barrier levels:
Cognitive Barriers (Level 1): Familiarity bias - the single most pervasive cognitive trap (Part 4) - causes leaders to gravitate toward frameworks they learned during business education or early career experiences, regardless of contextual appropriateness. Availability heuristic reinforces this pattern: readily accessible frameworks are assumed appropriate simply because they're mentally available. The Newtonian-Cartesian mindset systematically favors analytical frameworks over adaptive, experimental, or network-based approaches even when environmental complexity demands alternative methodologies. Cognitive rigidity prevents leaders from recognizing when their mental models have become strategic prisons.
Knowledge Barriers (Level 2): Limited educational exposure creates systematic blind spots - most executives know 15-20 frameworks from a universe of 300+ tools developed over the past century (Part 5). The exposure crisis means entire categories of strategy approaches remain invisible to mainstream strategists. Furthermore, comprehensive strategy selection frameworks remain underdeveloped, leaving organizations without systematic methods for matching approaches to environmental characteristics. The velocity gap between tool proliferation and selection guidance means organizations face expanding strategic options without navigation systems.
Institutional Barriers (Level 3): The legitimacy trap (Part 6) causes boards to prefer familiar frameworks they can evaluate confidently over contextually appropriate but unfamiliar approaches. Consulting industry standardization perpetuates narrow methodological repertoires through the consultant legitimation cycle. Template tyranny mandates predetermined frameworks regardless of situational demands. Risk aversion favors "safe" strategy approaches that minimize criticism risk but maximize strategic misalignment. Multi-actor coordination complexity biases selection toward lowest-common-denominator approaches everyone understands rather than specialized methodologies that better fit contexts.
These three barriers interact synergistically: cognitive biases are reinforced by knowledge gaps and locked in by institutional preferences, creating systematic resistance to contextually appropriate approach selection.
Diagnostic Indicators:
Detailed long-range plans developed despite high environmental uncertainty
Analytical frameworks (SWOT, Five Forces, portfolio matrices) applied to complex adaptive challenges
Predictive planning approaches used in VUCA environments
Same strategy approaches applied regardless of challenge type (optimization vs. innovation vs. transformation)
Strategy assumes controllability and predictability in environments characterized by emergence and uncertainty
Linear cause-effect analysis applied to complex systems with feedback loops and interdependencies
Historical data and trend extrapolation dominate strategic thinking in rapidly evolving markets
Case Example: A healthcare system facing rapid regulatory changes and technology disruption applied traditional strategic planning approaches based on five-year forecasts and competitive analysis. The volatile environment required adaptive planning and scenario-based approaches, but institutional preferences for analytical certainty led to inappropriate methodology selection.
Deficit 5: Inconsistent Strategy
Inconsistent strategies contain contradictory elements where different components work against each other. Vision statements imply one strategic direction while operating models reinforce opposing behaviors, creating internal confusion and implementation paralysis.
Manifestation Pattern:
Inconsistent strategies contain contradictory elements where different components actively work against each other, creating internal confusion and implementation paralysis. Vision statements imply one strategic direction while operating models, incentive systems, and resource allocation reinforce opposing behaviors. Organizations declare customer-centricity while maintaining product-focused structures, proclaim innovation priorities while preserving risk-averse approval processes, or commit to digital transformation while rewarding traditional metrics. These contradictions emerge from political compromises, organizational silos developing strategies independently, or failure to align legacy systems with new strategic directions.
Root Cause Analysis:
This deficit emerges primarily from institutional barriers (Level 3) combined with cognitive barriers (Level 1):
Institutional Barriers: Multi-stakeholder strategy processes create political compromises where contradictory elements are included to satisfy different constituencies - a form of strategic theater (Part 6). Organizational silos develop strategies independently, creating systemic inconsistencies when integrated. Legacy systems, incentive structures, and performance metrics persist despite strategic redirection (temporal misalignment), embedding contradictions between stated strategy and operational reality. The legitimacy trap encourages strategies that signal innovation while avoiding difficult organizational redesign. Strategic theater dynamics mean process participation becomes more important than strategic coherence, with elaborate planning exercises producing internally contradictory commitments.
Cognitive Barriers: Multiple psychological mechanisms (detailed in Part 4) prevent leaders from recognizing or resolving strategic contradictions. Motivated reasoning allows executives to maintain contradictory beliefs simultaneously - advocating for innovation while defending risk-averse approval processes - because acknowledging the contradiction would threaten organizational identity or political position. Compartmentalization enables leaders to hold incompatible strategic commitments in separate mental categories without recognizing their mutual exclusivity. When confronted with evidence of contradictions, cognitive dissonance is resolved through rationalization ("we're balancing competing priorities") rather than coherence-building, allowing inconsistencies to persist indefinitely. Attribution bias leads executives to credit strategic vision for successes while blaming execution or external factors for failures, preventing recognition that contradictions within the strategy itself cause performance problems.
Knowledge Contribution: Organizations lack systematic strategy evaluation analysis frameworks (Part 5) that would reveal contradictions between vision, strategic logic, operating model, resource allocation, and incentive systems before strategy approval. Without explicit methodology for testing strategic consistency, contradictions remain invisible until implementation failures make them undeniable.
Diagnostic Indicators:
Stated strategic priorities differ from actual resource allocation patterns
Performance metrics measure outcomes inconsistent with strategic objectives
Organizational structure obstructs rather than enables strategic direction
Innovation rhetoric coexists with risk-averse decision-making cultures
Strategy documents emphasize transformation while budgets fund status quo maintenance
Cross-functional initiatives fail due to contradictory departmental objectives
Case Example: A financial services company proclaimed digital transformation as its top strategic priority while maintaining traditional branch-based performance metrics, conservative technology investment processes, and product-silo organizational structures. These contradictions undermined digital initiatives regardless of implementation quality.
Deficit 6: Ambiguous Strategy
Ambiguous strategies mean different things to different organizational stakeholders, creating coordination failures and implementation confusion. Key strategic concepts are interpreted inconsistently across departments, hierarchical levels, or functional areas.
Manifestation Pattern:
Ambiguous strategies use vague or symbolic language that enables multiple, conflicting interpretations across organizational stakeholders. Key strategic concepts lack operational definitions - "digital transformation," "customer-centricity," "innovation," "agility" - mean different things to different departments, hierarchical levels, or functional areas. This ambiguity may be intentional (allowing political consensus through interpretive flexibility) or unintentional (insufficient investment in strategic communication), but the result is fragmented implementation where different parts of the organization pursue divergent directions while believing they're executing the same strategy.
Root Cause Analysis:
This deficit reflects knowledge barriers (Level 2) and institutional barriers (Level 3):
Knowledge Barriers: Organizations lack rigorous frameworks for translating high-level strategic concepts into operationally precise definitions - a critical gap in the strategy tool inventory (Part 5). Strategic communication methodologies remain underdeveloped relative to strategy formulation frameworks, reflecting the broader competency development crisis. The educational exposure limitations mean business education emphasizes strategy development without equivalent attention to strategic alignment and communication processes. Most executives have never been trained in systematic approaches for operationalizing abstract strategic concepts, leaving ambiguity as an unrecognized default.
Institutional Barriers: Time pressure in strategy processes prioritizes quick consensus over conceptual precision, a manifestation of template tyranny (Part 6). Political dynamics favor ambiguous language that allows different stakeholders to project their preferred interpretations, enabling approval while avoiding difficult trade-off discussions - strategic theater in action. The multi-actor coordination complexity creates incentives for interpretive flexibility as a political lubricant. Hierarchical communication patterns prevent feedback that would reveal interpretive divergence, while temporal misalignment means insufficient time is allocated for the iterative clarification required for precision.
Cognitive Contribution: Illusion of transparency and curse of knowledge (Part 4) cause strategists to overestimate how clearly their intent is communicated. Strategy formulators fail to recognize that concepts clear to them (with full contextual understanding) remain ambiguous to others without that background, a form of cognitive rigidity that prevents perspective-taking.
Diagnostic Indicators:
Different departments describe strategic priorities using the same words but opposite meanings
Strategic terminology lacks operational definitions that translate to specific actions
Cross-functional teams struggle to align on strategic direction despite shared documentation
Implementation conflicts arise from varying interpretations rather than disagreements
Middle managers request clarification on "what strategy actually means for us"
Strategy can be quoted verbatim but not explained concretely
Ask 5 leaders "What does [strategic priority] mean?"—receive 5 different answers
Case Example: A technology company's "platform strategy" meant different things to different groups: engineering viewed it as technical architecture, sales interpreted it as product bundling, and marketing saw it as ecosystem messaging. This ambiguity prevented coordinated platform development and go-to-market execution.
Deficit 7: Performative Strategy - The Theater of Strategy Formulation
Performative strategies are designed primarily for external appearance rather than internal transformation. These strategies satisfy formal governance requirements, stakeholder expectations, or regulatory compliance while avoiding genuine strategic choices or organizational commitment.
Manifestation Pattern:
Performative strategies are designed primarily to satisfy external governance requirements, stakeholder expectations, or regulatory compliance rather than guide genuine organizational transformation. These strategies emerge from "strategic theater"—elaborate planning processes that demonstrate strategic sophistication without requiring difficult trade-offs or controversial choices. The strategy development process becomes more important than strategy content, producing impressive documentation with minimal business impact. Strategies include fashionable concepts (sustainability, digital transformation, innovation) to signal responsiveness while avoiding fundamental business model implications or resource reallocation that would indicate authentic commitment.
Root Cause Analysis:
This deficit represents pure institutional barrier (Level 3) dysfunction:
Institutional Barriers: Governance requirements mandate strategy formulation cycles regardless of strategic need, creating bureaucratic compliance exercises - the ultimate expression of template tyranny (Part 6). Board oversight emphasizes process completion over strategic quality, rewarding elaborate documentation regardless of substantive value. Regulatory requirements incentivize symbolic strategy adoption for legitimacy signaling. The legitimacy trap drives stakeholder management pressures that favor strategies satisfying multiple constituencies through compromise rather than genuine strategic choice. Strategic theater becomes the dominant mode as organizations engage in elaborate performances of strategic sophistication for external audiences.
External legitimacy pressures (investor expectations, industry norms, consulting industry influence) reward adoption of fashionable strategic approaches regardless of contextual appropriateness. Multi-actor complexity creates political pressures for symbolic rather than substantive commitments. Strategy development becomes more about demonstrating strategic sophistication to external audiences than addressing internal strategic challenges. Temporal misalignment means institutionalized planning cycles drive strategy timing rather than strategic necessity.
Cognitive Reinforcement: Impression management motivations (Part 4) cause executives to prioritize external perception over internal transformation. Self-deception allows leaders to believe performative strategies represent genuine strategic commitment, reducing cognitive dissonance between symbolic and substantive action. Attribution bias enables leaders to credit performative strategies for any positive outcomes while attributing failures to external factors, preventing recognition of the strategy's theatrical nature.
Knowledge Factor: Inadequate frameworks for distinguishing performative from substantive strategy (Part 5) enable this deficit to persist unrecognized. Without explicit criteria for strategic authenticity, organizations cannot systematically detect when strategy processes have become theatrical rather than transformative.
Diagnostic Indicators:
Strategy satisfies multiple stakeholder groups through compromise rather than choice
Planning processes emphasize broad participation over decision-making quality
Strategic documents designed for external presentation rather than internal guidance
Strategy avoids difficult trade-offs or controversial resource allocation decisions
Fashionable strategic concepts adopted without operational implications
Strategy changes rarely despite environmental shifts or performance feedback
Leadership references strategy in board meetings but not operational reviews
Failed initiatives don't trigger strategy approach revision
Strategy could be abandoned without significantly changing operations
Case Example: A conglomerate's sustainability strategy included ambitious environmental commitments and comprehensive ESG frameworks designed to satisfy investor and regulatory expectations. However, the strategy avoided addressing core business model sustainability issues or making difficult divestment decisions, resulting in impressive documentation with minimal business impact.
From Strategy Deficits to the Execution Myth
These seven deficits explain why the execution myth (explored in Part 1) proves so persistent and dangerous. When strategies suffer from fundamental formulation flaws, even exemplary implementation produces failure. But because execution is visible while formulation deficits are subtle, organizations misdiagnose the problem.
Strategic Leadership Implications: From Deficit Recognition to Strategic Strength
Strategy deficit identification represents the first step toward systematic improvement in strategy formulation quality. Organizations developing sophisticated deficit recognition capabilities gain several competitive advantages:
Reduced Strategy Failure Rates: Proactive identification and correction of strategy deficits before implementation prevents costly execution of fundamentally flawed approaches.
Enhanced Strategic Learning: Systematic analysis of deficit patterns enables organizations to improve their strategy development processes over time.
Improved Resource Allocation: Better strategy quality ensures organizational resources are invested in coherent, realistic, and contextually appropriate strategic directions.
The Strategy Formulation Imperative
Strategy deficits reveal a fundamental truth: no amount of implementation excellence can overcome formulation flaws. Organizations investing millions in execution improvement while producing fundamentally deficient strategies are optimizing the wrong variable. The diagnostic question before committing resources to implementation:
Which of these seven deficits might be undermining our strategy, and how can we address them before execution begins?"
But recognition alone proves insufficient. Part 3 of this series examines why organizations continue producing deficient strategies despite widespread awareness of these patterns. The answer lies in the Strategy Gap - the systematic disconnect between the strategy approaches organizations need and those they actually use. This gap persists due to three levels of barriers:
Cognitive barriers that prevent individuals from recognizing appropriate approaches (explored in Part 4)
Knowledge barriers that limit awareness of available methodologies (explored in Part 5)
Institutional barriers that block organizational capability development (explored in Part 6)
Part 7 provides the comprehensive roadmap for building Strategy Approach Selection Capability - the systematic organizational ability to consistently choose contextually appropriate approaches and permanently eliminate strategy deficits.
About This Research
This series is based on comprehensive research from the forthcoming book "Business Strategy Formulation: The 7C Strategy Wheel" (Routledge, 2026), which introduces the most extensive strategy toolkit available, featuring seven strategic postures, 28 strategy approaches, and 59 methods derived by analyzing and synthesizing over 300 strategy tools, 25 theoretical perspectives, 2,000 literature pieces, and 200 public and private sector strategies.
Next in this series: "Closing the Strategy Gap: Why Organizations Can't Choose the Right Approaches" examines why the Strategy Gap persists and how cognitive, knowledge, and institutional barriers prevent contextually appropriate strategy selection.