Closing the Strategy Gap: Why Organizations Can't Choose the Right Approaches
Part 3 in the Strategy Gap Series
How cognitive biases, knowledge deficits, institutional constraints, and strategy selection capability gaps prevent contextually appropriate strategy selection
"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." — Mike Tyson
"The first natural advantage of good strategy arises because other organizations often don't have one. And because they don't expect you to have one, either." — Richard P. Rumelt
Parts 1 and 2 of this series established that strategy failures predominantly originate in formulation rather than execution, manifesting through seven predictable deficit patterns. A fundamental question emerges: why do organizations persistently select inappropriate strategy approaches despite their strategic importance?
Boston Consulting Group research reveals a striking paradox: while 75% of executives recognize that different strategic challenges require different approaches, only 25% actually use approaches suitable for unpredictable environments (Reeves, Love & Tillmanns, 2012). This dramatic disconnect - when organizations either lack awareness of appropriate approaches or default to familiar methods despite knowing better - is what we call the Strategy Gap: the systematic mismatch between the strategy approach an organization needs and the one it actually uses.
The root cause is insufficient Strategy Approach Selection Capability - the systematic organizational ability to consistently choose contextually appropriate strategy formulation approaches. This capability deficit manifests through three interdependent barrier levels: cognitive biases (explored in Part 4), knowledge infrastructure deficits (explored in Part 5), and institutional constraints (explored in Part 6). This article provides an overview of how these barriers interact to prevent capability development, while Part 7 provides the solution - a roadmap for building the seven-dimension capability framework needed to close the Strategy Gap.
"Unfortunately, good strategy is the exception, not the rule."
- Richard P. Rumelt, Good Strategy/Bad Strategy (2011)
What is the Strategy gap?
THE STRATEGY GAP
The systematic disconnect between the strategy approach an organization needs and the one it actually uses.
TWO MANIFESTATIONS:
Awareness Gap: Organizations lack knowledge of appropriate approaches
Selection Gap: Organizations default to familiar methods despite knowing better
ROOT CAUSE:
Insufficient Strategy Approach Selection Capability across seven dimensions
BARRIERS:
Cognitive (individual biases)
Knowledge (infrastructure deficits)
Institutional (organizational constraints)
The Strategy Gap Is Widening
The Strategy Gap isn't static - it's expanding. Over the past decade (2015-2025), while awareness of the need for contextually appropriate strategy approaches has remained high - documented at 90% by 2015 (Reeves, Haanaes & Sinha, 2015) - the environmental conditions demanding such sophistication have deteriorated dramatically. Yet organizational action remains stubbornly low at just 25%, creating a widening chasm between what organizations know they need and what they can actually deliver.
Both quantitative and qualitative evidence reveal a fundamental transformation in the strategic environment that has outpaced organizational capability development.
Unprecedented Uncertainty Acceleration
The strategic environment has fundamentally transformed since 2015. The World Uncertainty Index (GDP-weighted) reached 80,038 in Q2 2025 - representing an unprecedented escalation from the relative stability of the mid-2010s. Examining the graph reveals the pattern: while uncertainty fluctuated between roughly 15,000-30,000 throughout 2015-2023, with notable spikes during Brexit (2016) and the COVID-19 pandemic (2020, peaking near 56,000), the current level dwarfs all previous crises.
Figure: World Uncertainty Index (Global, GDP-Weighted) - 2015 to 2025
Multi-Dimensional Complexity and Uncertainty
This quantitative surge reflects the convergence of multiple destabilizing forces. Today's environment is characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) across interconnected dimensions: economic volatility through fragmented global value chains and recurring financial crises; technological disruption via AI, IoT, and blockchain fundamentally altering competitive dynamics; geopolitical tensions including protectionist policies and weaponized trade relationships disrupting supply chains; ecological imperatives demanding ESG transparency and circular economy commitments; and societal transformations from demographic shifts to purpose-driven employment expectations. These forces interact synergistically, creating strategic challenges that traditional planning-based approaches -designed for stable, predictable environments - simply cannot address.
The Strategy Gap: Quantifying the Misalignment Crisis
The Strategy Gap manifests as a persistent disconnect between strategic sophistication and strategic behavior. Despite unprecedented access to strategy frameworks—our research catalogues over 300 strategy tools developed over the past 100 years—most organizations continue relying on a narrow subset of familiar approaches regardless of contextual appropriateness.
The Scale of Strategic Misalignment
The Scale of Strategic Misalignment
Boston Consulting Group research reveals the magnitude of this challenge: while 75% of executives recognize that different strategic challenges require different approaches, only 25% actually use approaches suitable for unpredictable environments. This dramatic gap - occurring when leaders either don't know what approaches are available or default to familiar methods despite knowing better - indicates systematic barriers that prevent contextually appropriate strategy selection.
Figure 1: The Strategy Gap Visualization. Three barrier levels systematically prevent executives from translating awareness (75%) into action (25%). Source: BCG Research (Reeves, Love & Tillmanns, 2012).
The Strategic Planning Dissatisfaction Crisis
The Strategy Gap isn't theoretical - it manifests as measurable organizational frustration:
Only 32% of global executives rate their organizations as having effective strategic planning processes** with strong strategy design, execution and adaptation (Bain, 2016).
70% of executives don't like their strategy process, and 70% of board members don't trust the results** (McKinsey survey, 2014, referenced in Bradley, Hirt, and Smit, *Strategy Beyond the Hockey Stick*, 2018).
Only 45% of respondents were satisfied with their strategic planning processes** (McKinsey, 2007).
Executives surveyed by Boston Consulting Group criticized their strategic planning processes as overly bureaucratic, insufficiently insightful, and ill-suited for today's rapidly changing markets" (Kachaner, King, & Stewart, 2016).
61% of organizations struggle to deliver the desired results of strategic planning** (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2017).
This widespread dissatisfaction reveals a deeper problem: organizations are dissatisfied not because they execute poorly, but because they formulate inappropriately. They're using the wrong strategy approaches for their contexts - producing the disconnect between strategic sophistication and strategic behavior.
As Richard Rumelt observed, 'Unfortunately, good strategy is the exception, not the rule' - and now we know why.
Manifestation Patterns Across Organizational Types
Our analysis of strategy formulation practices across diverse sectors reveals consistent patterns of strategic misalignment:
Private Sector: Technology companies facing ecosystem competition continue applying competitive positioning frameworks designed for product-based rivalry, missing platform dynamics and network effects.
Public Sector: Government agencies confronting complex policy challenges ("wicked problems") default to linear planning models despite environmental uncertainty and multi-stakeholder complexity requiring adaptive approaches.
Non-Profit Sector: Organizations addressing social transformation challenges rely on traditional strategic planning despite mission complexity requiring systems thinking and collaborative methodologies.
The Three-Level Barrier Framework: Why Strategy Selection Capability Remains Underdeveloped
The Strategy Gap persists because organizations lack Strategy Approach Selection Capability - the systematic ability to consistently choose contextually appropriate strategy formulation approaches. This capability requires coordinated development across seven organizational dimensions: Purpose, Strategic Intelligence & Learning, Processes, Technology, Talent & Competencies, Governance, and Strategy Tools.
However, three levels of systematic barriers prevent capability development. These barriers explain both why organizations lack awareness of appropriate approaches (knowledge barriers blocking the Strategy Tools dimension) and why they default to familiar methods despite knowing alternatives (cognitive barriers affecting Talent & Competencies, and institutional barriers constraining Purpose, Processes, and Governance dimensions). Our analysis, grounded in behavioral strategy research and institutional theory, reveals how these barriers interact to prevent the organizational capability development necessary for closing the Strategy Gap.
Figure 2: The three level barrier framework
Level 1: Individual-Level Cognitive Barriers
Individual cognitive constraints represent the most immediate barriers to building Strategy Approach Selection Capability, particularly undermining the Talent & Competencies dimension. These psychological patterns cause leaders to default to familiar approaches even when they intellectually understand alternatives might be more appropriate, preventing development of sophisticated contextual diagnosis skills essential for capability maturity.
Familiarity Bias and Educational Lock-in
Strategy practitioners gravitate toward approaches they learned during business education or early career experiences. Our analysis reveals that most executives are exposed to fewer than 20 strategy frameworks during their professional development, creating systematic blind spots in strategy approach awareness.
MBA curricula worldwide emphasize remarkably similar frameworks: SWOT analysis, Porter's Five Forces, value chain analysis, and portfolio matrices. These tools, while powerful in stable environments, represent a tiny fraction of available approaches yet dominate strategic thinking due to educational standardization.
The Complexity Avoidance Syndrome
Traditional analytical thinking in strategy remains anchored in linear, mechanistic worldviews assuming predictable, controllable systems. This Newtonian-Cartesian mindset systematically favors analytical frameworks over adaptive, experimental, or systems-based approaches even when environmental complexity demands alternative methodologies.
Uncertainty Aversion Complex
Human cognitive architecture creates systematic resistance to uncertainty-appropriate strategy approaches through three interconnected biases:
Overconfidence Bias: Executives systematically overestimate their predictive capabilities, leading to inappropriate reliance on planning-based approaches in uncertain environments
Confirmation Bias: Once committed to analytical frameworks, leaders seek supporting evidence while dismissing contradictory signals
Ostrich Effect: Under high uncertainty, leaders often ignore threatening signals and retreat to familiar analytical tools instead of adopting approaches suited to uncertainty.
These cognitive barriers directly undermine the Talent & Competencies dimension of Strategy Approach Selection Capability by preventing individuals from developing the meta-strategic thinking, systems perspective, and paradoxical reasoning required for sophisticated strategy approach selection. Overcoming these biases requires systematic cognitive resilience development as detailed in Part 7.
Level 2: Knowledge and Capability Barriers
Beyond cognitive biases, the Strategy Gap persists due to genuine knowledge infrastructure limitations that prevent organizations from building comprehensive Strategy Tools and Strategic Intelligence & Learning capabilities. Even cognitively aware leaders cannot select approaches they don't know exist. This knowledge barrier represents a critical impediment to Strategy Approach Selection Capability development - organizations simply lack awareness of the full spectrum of available strategy approaches and systematic frameworks for choosing between them.
The Strategy Selection Tool Deficit
While hundreds of strategy tools exist, comprehensive frameworks for choosing between them remain underdeveloped. Organizations face tool proliferation without selection guidance. There is an expanding universe of strategic options without systematic methods for contextual matching.
Quality Problems in Existing Selection Frameworks
Most available strategy selection tools suffer from three critical limitations:
Obsolescence: Frameworks developed for industrial-age competition fail in ecosystem and platform environments
Oversimplification: Complex strategic contexts reduced to binary matrices that ignore nuanced situational factors
Theoretical Poverty: Selection guidance based on consultant experience rather than systematic research
Educational Exposure Limitations
Business education creates predictable blind spots in strategy approach awareness. Students graduate with deep familiarity with perhaps 15-20 frameworks while remaining unaware of:
Sustainability transition strategies from environmental management
Complexity-based approaches from systems science
Digital-native strategies from technology sectors
Public policy methodologies for multi-stakeholder challenges
The Competency Development Crisis
Effective strategy approach selection requires advanced competencies rarely developed in traditional business education:
Strategic Thinking: Understanding systemic relationships and temporal implications beyond analytical processing
Paradoxical Thinking: Managing contradictory forces simultaneously rather than seeking single solutions
Systems Perspective: Recognizing interconnections and feedback loops rather than linear cause-effect relationships
Meta-Strategic Capability: Thinking about thinking about strategy—understanding when different approaches are appropriate
These knowledge barriers directly prevent development of two critical capability dimensions: the Strategy Tools dimension (comprehensive repository of approaches) and the Strategic Intelligence & Learning dimension (systematic frameworks for contextual matching). Addressing these barriers requires knowledge infrastructure investment as outlined in Part 7.
Level 3: Institutional and Social Barriers
The third level of barriers emerges when leaders possess both cognitive awareness and comprehensive knowledge of appropriate approaches, yet institutional forces prevent capability development. Even when individuals know better alternatives exist and consciously want to use them, organizational structures and social pressures block the Purpose, Processes, Governance, and Technology dimensions of Strategy Approach Selection Capability - preventing institutionalization of sophisticated strategy selection despite individual sophistication.
The Legitimacy Imperative
Organizations often select strategy approaches based on perceived validity within business communities rather than contextual appropriateness. This legitimacy dynamic creates mimetic isomorphism - copying prestigious practices even when they don't fit organizational contexts.
Board governance structures systematically bias strategy approach selection toward conservative, familiar frameworks. Board members, typically successful executives from previous eras, evaluate strategies through mental models shaped by historical experience, creating resistance to innovative approaches regardless of analytical merit.
Template-Based Strategy Standardization
Many organizations mandate standardized strategic planning templates that reduce strategy formulation to bureaucratic compliance rather than contextual analysis. Government agencies and corporate centers often require subsidiaries to complete predetermined frameworks regardless of situational demands.
These three barrier levels interact synergistically to prevent Strategy Approach Selection Capability development. The result? The cumulative body of research shows that organizations are dissatisfied with their strategic planning processes and do not believe they produce impactful strategies. Only 32% rate their processes as effective (Bain, 2016), only 45% are satisfied with their planning (McKinsey, 2007), and 70% of executives dislike their strategy process while 70% of board members don't trust the results (McKinsey, 2014).
This dissatisfaction stems directly from the Strategy Gap—the systematic disconnect between the approach an organization needs and the one it actually uses.
The Strategic Theater Phenomenon
Organizations increasingly engage in "strategic theater" - selecting approaches primarily to manage external perceptions rather than address internal challenges. Strategy development becomes performance art designed to signal innovation or responsiveness to stakeholders while avoiding genuine strategic choices.
Multi-Actor Coordination Complexity
Modern strategy formulation involves multiple departments, hierarchical levels, and external stakeholders, creating coordination challenges that bias selection toward lowest-common-denominator approaches. Political dynamics often override analytical considerations, leading to strategic compromises that satisfy constituencies while optimizing for none.
Temporal Structural Misalignment
Organizations become trapped in institutionalized planning cycles driven by budgeting processes, board schedules, or regulatory requirements rather than environmental change pace. These temporal structures force misalignment between strategy approach timing and contextual demands.
The Selection Capability Architecture: How Barriers Block Specific Dimensions
Understanding how the three barrier levels prevent Strategy Approach Selection Capability development reveals why closing the Strategy Gap requires comprehensive organizational transformation rather than isolated interventions:
Level 1 (Cognitive) Barriers Block:
Dimension 5: Talent & Competencies - Cognitive biases prevent individuals from developing sophisticated contextual diagnosis and meta-strategic thinking capabilities essential for approach selection.
Level 2 (Knowledge) Barriers Block:
Dimension 7: Strategy Tools - Limited exposure prevents comprehensive repository development of available methodologies.
Dimension 2: Strategic Intelligence & Learning - Inadequate selection frameworks prevent systematic learning about context-method fit patterns.
Level 3 (Institutional) Barriers Block:
Dimension 1: Purpose - Legitimacy imperatives prevent organizational commitment to contextual sophistication over conventional approaches.
Dimension 3: Processes - Template standardization prevents flexible, context-responsive selection protocols.
Dimension 6: Governance - Board conservatism prevents institutional support for methodological diversity.
Dimension 4: Technology - Institutional inertia prevents investment in digital infrastructure supporting sophisticated selection.
This mapping reveals why Strategy Approach Selection Capability requires systematic intervention across all three barrier levels simultaneously - isolated improvements in individual competencies, knowledge infrastructure, or institutional processes prove insufficient when other barriers remain active.
The Barrier Interaction Effect: How Constraints Compound
These three barrier levels interact synergistically to prevent Strategy Approach Selection Capability development. The interaction manifests in two ways:
When Organizations Lack Awareness (The Strategy Gap Dimension 1): Educational limitations (Level 2) preventing comprehensive Strategy Tools development are reinforced by cognitive biases favoring familiar frameworks (Level 1) limiting Talent & Competencies, and institutional pressures to use "legitimate" approaches (Level 3) constraining Purpose and Governance, collectively blocking awareness of alternative methods.
When Organizations Know But Can't Use (The Strategy Gap Dimension 2): Cognitive biases toward familiarity (Level 1) limiting Talent & Competencies are reinforced by inadequate selection frameworks (Level 2) preventing Strategic Intelligence & Learning, and locked in by institutional constraints (Level 3) blocking Processes and Governance, collectively preventing action despite awareness.
This synergistic effect creates systematic resistance to Strategy Approach Selection Capability development that exceeds the sum of individual constraints. Building mature capability across all seven dimensions requires simultaneously addressing cognitive, knowledge, and institutional barriers - the focus of Part 7 in this series.
The Strategy Gap in Action: Three Failure Patterns
Pattern 1: The Awareness Trap A healthcare system facing regulatory disruption applies traditional 5-year planning because executives don't know dynamic planning methodologies exist. Root cause: Knowledge barriers (Level 2) preventing exposure to alternative approaches.
Pattern 2: The Selection Trap
A technology company knows about platform strategy but continues using competitive positioning frameworks because board members trust familiar analyses. Root cause: Institutional barriers (Level 3) overriding individual knowledge.
Pattern 3: The Capability Trap A manufacturer recognizes the need for ecosystem thinking, hires consultants who present the framework, yet returns to operational excellence approaches after consultants leave. Root cause: All three levels - cognitive comfort with linear thinking (Level 1), lack of internal expertise (Level 2), and no governance support for new approaches (Level 3).
Why Organizations Can't Buy Their Way Out of the Strategy Gap
Organizations facing the Strategy Gap typically try to buy solutions: hire strategy consultants, purchase planning software, recruit executives from successful companies. These interventions fail because they address symptoms rather than capability deficits. You cannot outsource capability development. Building Strategy Approach Selection Capability requires systematic transformation across seven interdependent dimensions, addressing cognitive, knowledge, and institutional barriers simultaneously.
Cognitive Resilience Development (Addresses Level 1 → Builds Talent & Competencies)
Organizations building the Talent & Competencies dimension of Strategy Approach Selection Capability implement systematic interventions to overcome cognitive barriers:
Pre-mortem Analysis: Systematic examination of strategy approach assumptions before commitment, counteracting confirmation bias
Challenger Role Assignment: Formal designation of team members to question methodology choices, overcoming familiarity bias
Cognitive Diversity Requirements: Deliberate inclusion of different disciplinary perspectives in strategy development, reducing groupthink
These interventions develop individual meta-strategic thinking capabilities essential for sophisticated contextual diagnosis and approach selection.
Knowledge Infrastructure Investment (Addresses Level 2 → Builds Strategy Tools & Strategic Intelligence)
Organizations building the Strategy Tools and Strategic Intelligence & Learning dimensions implement systematic knowledge development:
Strategy Approach Inventory Development: Comprehensive cataloguing of available methodologies with contextual guidance, expanding awareness beyond educational exposure
Selection Framework Creation: Systematic methods for matching approaches to environmental characteristics, addressing the velocity gap between tool proliferation and selection guidance
Competency Development Programs: Training in meta-strategic thinking and contextual diagnosis, building sophisticated pattern recognition capabilities
These interventions create the knowledge infrastructure necessary for informed approach selection across diverse strategic contexts.
Institutional Transformation (Addresses Level 3 → Builds Purpose, Processes, Governance, Technology)
Organizations building the Purpose, Processes, Governance, and Technology dimensions implement systematic institutional redesign:
Governance Redesign: Board education about strategy approach diversity and contextual appropriateness, overcoming legitimacy pressures favoring conventional methods
Process Flexibility: Template alternatives that accommodate different strategy methodologies, replacing bureaucratic standardization with contextual responsiveness
Performance Metric Alignment: Evaluation systems that reward strategic sophistication rather than just analytical completion, institutionalizing commitment to contextual appropriateness
Technology Infrastructure Investment: Digital platforms enabling sophisticated contextual analysis and collaborative approach selection
These interventions create the institutional conditions necessary for sustained capability maturity and consistent contextually appropriate strategy selection.
The Seven-Dimension Integration
Part 7 of this series provides comprehensive guidance for building Strategy Approach Selection Capability by developing all seven dimensions in coordinated fashion. The capability framework addresses:
Dimension 1: Purpose - Organizational commitment to contextual sophistication (overcomes institutional legitimacy barriers)
Dimension 2: Strategic Intelligence & Learning - Systematic learning about context-method fit (overcomes knowledge infrastructure deficits)
Dimension 3: Processes - Formal selection protocols (overcomes template standardization)
Dimension 4: Technology - Digital infrastructure (enables sophisticated analysis and collaboration)
Dimension 5: Talent & Competencies - Individual expertise (overcomes cognitive biases)
Dimension 6: Governance - Institutional framework (overcomes board conservatism)
Dimension 7: Strategy Tools - Methodological repository (overcomes limited educational exposure)
The Competitive Advantage of Strategic Sophistication
Organizations successfully developing Strategy Approach Selection Capability—by systematically addressing cognitive, knowledge, and institutional barriers across all seven dimensions gain three systematic advantages:
Enhanced Strategic Responsiveness: Mature Strategic Intelligence & Learning and Processes capabilities enable rapid recognition and response to environmental changes requiring approach shifts, maintaining strategic relevance during market evolution.
Improved Resource Efficiency: Sophisticated Strategy Tools and Talent & Competencies dimensions enable better initial alignment between methodology and context, reducing strategic rework and pivot requirements while freeing resources for value-creating activities.
Innovation Capacity: Advanced Purpose and Governance dimensions create institutional support for experimental and emergent approaches rather than default analytical frameworks, enabling creative strategic responses that competitors using standard frameworks cannot conceive.
These advantages compound over time as mature capability enables continuous learning and improvement in contextual strategy formulation, systematically outperforming competitors trapped by the three barrier levels.
The Strategic Leadership Imperative: From Awareness to Capability
The Strategy Gap persists because organizations lack Strategy Approach Selection Capability—the systematic organizational ability to consistently choose contextually appropriate strategy formulation approaches across seven interdependent dimensions. This article has examined how three levels of barriers prevent capability development:
Cognitive barriers (Level 1) prevent individuals from developing the sophisticated competencies required for contextual diagnosis and approach selection.
Knowledge barriers (Level 2) prevent organizations from building comprehensive strategy tool repositories and selection frameworks.
Institutional barriers (Level 3) prevent organizations from establishing the purpose, processes, governance, and technology infrastructure necessary for sustained capability maturity.
Closing the Strategy Gap requires systematic capability development addressing all three barrier levels simultaneously. Organizations that invest in building mature Strategy Approach Selection Capability gain sustainable competitive advantage through consistently superior strategy formulation - the focus of Part 7 in this series, which provides a comprehensive roadmap for capability development across all seven dimensions.
The competitive advantage no longer belongs to organizations with the best strategy tools - it belongs to those with the capability to choose the right tools for each challenge.
Three Paths Forward
Organizations facing the Strategy Gap have three options:
Path 1: Denial — Continue using familiar approaches regardless of fit, accepting strategic mediocrity as inevitable. This is the default path for 75% of organizations.
Path 2: Piecemeal Response — Address individual barriers (train executives, hire consultants, update templates) without systematic capability building. This produces temporary improvements followed by regression to familiar methods.
Path 3: Capability Transformation — Systematically develop Strategy Approach Selection Capability across all seven dimensions, addressing cognitive, knowledge, and institutional barriers simultaneously. This is the only path that closes the Strategy Gap permanently.
The question isn't whether your organization has a Strategy Gap - research shows most do. The question is which path you'll choose to address it.
“A good strategy honestly acknowledges the challenges being faced and provides an approach to overcoming them.”
The Question That Changes Everything
Before accepting the Strategy Gap as inevitable, strategic leaders must ask two diagnostic questions:
"Which barrier levels prevent our organization from developing Strategy Approach Selection Capability?"
Cognitive barriers limiting individual competencies?
Knowledge barriers preventing tool awareness and selection frameworks?
Institutional barriers blocking organizational commitment and processes?
"Do we have systematic capability to choose contextually appropriate strategy approaches, or are we relying on habit, intuition, and institutional precedent?"
These questions reveal whether your organization needs to:
Develop individual cognitive resilience and meta-strategic competencies (Address Level 1)
Build knowledge infrastructure and strategy tool repositories (Address Level 2)
Transform institutional purpose, processes, and governance (Address Level 3)
Integrate all seven capability dimensions systematically (Part 7 roadmap)
The answer determines your path to closing the Strategy Gap through systematic capability development rather than continued reliance on methodological autopilot.
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: "The Psychology of Strategic Choice: How Cognitive Biases Derail Strategic Decision-Making" examines the individual-level cognitive barriers in comprehensive detail, exploring how familiarity bias, overconfidence, confirmation bias, and other psychological patterns prevent organizations from developing the Talent & Competencies dimension of Strategy Approach Selection Capability.
Skip to the Solution: Ready to build capability now? [Part 7: Building Strategy Approach Selection Capability] provides the complete roadmap for developing organizational capability across all seven dimensions.