Posts in Tag: Strategy

How SHARP is your strategy?

A strategy statement has one job: It must help people decide.

Every day across your organization, teams face choices about what to build, fund, prioritize, or abandon. Strategy exists to guide those choices.

Sounds good in theory, but we both know that in practice, it’s almost never that simple. You’ve certainly been in a meeting where that became obvious. The one that got tense when two execs came to opposite conclusions and both of them justified it with “the strategy.”

But you know what? That tense meeting is actually good news. It’s how good ideas become great strategies.

You can think of each decision under a strategy as an experiment. Every time a team uses the strategy to make a decision, the organization learns something about the idea behind it.

Sometimes the choice is straightforward. That’s a validation. Sometimes it exposes ambiguity that needs to be fixed.

Either way, the strategy becomes SHARP through use. Great strategies almost never arrive as finished declarations, but as ideas that are tested against real decisions and refined each time they reveal confusion. Over and over again.

So, how do you deliberately embrace that process?

Here’s a simple way to think about it. When you recognize a tension, go through this loop:

S: Say it simply
Use the most plain and simple words you can find.

H: Hold it up against a real decision
Listen carefully for how others use it in the conversation.

A: Analyze the ambiguity
Pinpoint exactly which words created the competing interpretations.

R: Refine the words
Don’t scrap the whole strategy. Rewrite exactly those words.

P: Prove it works or repeat
Re-apply it to the decision and, if necessary, restart the loop.

That’s it.

Keep lighting the path,
Michael

PS: My book The PATH to Strategic Impact has many real life examples of sharp strategy communication.

Run your leadership message through this test

What, 30 seconds?
Several readers wrote in after yesterday’s post because they doubted you could seriously evaluate a message that quickly.

But I was being serious.

The PATH checks are really simple. With a trained eye, you can sense in 30 seconds if one of the four tests fails.

That’s the beauty of having language to name things. Once you start using the PATH checks to analyze messages, you know what to look for. And so, the four criteria quickly become second nature.

But even if you’re new to it, I stand by the 30 seconds. We’re living in the age of AI. Just ask your favorite chatbot if your message passes the test.

To make this easy for you, I’ve prepared a prompt (see below). Simply paste it, replace the brackets with your message and off you go.

To show you how it works, I’ve run it on a few well-known examples. Really interesting results. See for yourself.

Even better: Run a few of your own leadership messages through it. You might be surprised how many fail the test.

Keep lighting the path,
Michael


PATH Check for leadership messages
Copy and paste this prompt:

You are an analytical evaluator of leadership communication. Your task is to assess whether a message passes the PATH clarity test. The goal is not to rewrite the message or give generic advice, but to diagnose how well it satisfies the four conditions that messages must meet to move people.

Analyze the following message:

[PASTE MESSAGE HERE]

Evaluate it according to the PATH framework:

P — Plain and simple
Does the message communicate its meaning immediately without requiring interpretation or translation?

  • Explain whether a typical listener would understand the message instantly.
  • Identify any vague, abstract, or corporate language.
  • If the message requires interpretation, describe what a listener would likely translate it into.

A — Actionable
Does the message make the next step obvious?

  • Identify what a listener would realistically do differently after hearing this message.
  • If no clear action follows, explain why.
  • Distinguish between values, intentions, and concrete implications for behavior.

T — Transformative
Would anything actually change if people took the message seriously?

  • Describe what existing behaviors, priorities, or activities would stop, start, or change.
  • If the message allows everything to continue as before, explain why it lacks transformative force.

H — Heartfelt
Does the message sound like something a real person means?

  • Assess whether the language feels human, sincere, and believable.
  • Identify phrases that feel artificial, corporate, or designed to avoid commitment.
  • Explain whether the message would likely be repeated naturally by others.

Overall PATH Assessment

Provide a concise diagnostic summary:

Plain: Strong / Partial / Weak
Actionable: Strong / Partial / Weak
Transformative: Strong / Partial / Weak
Heartfelt: Strong / Partial / Weak

Then conclude with:

Key Observation:
A short paragraph explaining the most important reason the message would or would not move people.

Do not rewrite the message unless necessary to illustrate a point. Focus on diagnosis rather than advice.

Did your strategy survive the drive home from the retreat?

By now, many of you have been through your annual strategy retreat. How did it go?

Too often, this is what happens next:


What hurts most is that everyone poured their heart into this. Didn’t you?

You locked yourself away. You had good debates. Which turned into heated discussions. And still, you landed on something that feels really good. It’s logically sound. It’s brave. It’s clear.

So what happened between the retreat and this chart?

Often, I hear it’s an “execution problem”.

I don’t buy it. It’s a relay problem. The clarity from the retreat doesn’t make it to the team.

Which is unsurprising when you think about it: The people at the top feel the most clarity (of course). They were in the room where every nuance was debated. Every trade off considered. Every slide refined.

But then, the announcement was made in typical committee fashion. Made to survive 12 rounds of approval, including every nuance, using general language that applies to every single special case.

Rather than as a pass-along ready version that survives 100 rounds of the telephone game between colleagues in the hallway.

A very simple framework you can use for your messaging is the PATH checklist from my latest book.

Is your announcement …

  • Plain and simple so that everyone can understand it?
  • Actionable so that everyone knows what it means for the choices they have to make each and every day?
  • Transformative so that the team sees how this will actually change things in a meaningful way?
  • Heartfelt so that we actually believe in it?

Most strategy announcements check only one (guess which).

But if you manage to check all four, the graph will look very different in your organization.

Keep lighting the path,
Michael

Is your strategy clear… or just clear at the top?

Strategic clarity at the top. Confusion below.
That’s the status quo in too many organizations.

The CEO knows exactly what she wants. The board refines and approves it. It sounds brilliant.

But then the relay chain takes over:
Directors “translate” the business terms → managers “interpret” what it could mean for everyday tasks → and teams can only guess what the strategy actually is.

Every layer adds a thought, nuance, perhaps fear and no one can really explain the original intent.

But why does that even happen when everything was so clear at the top?

Well, maybe because leadership thought the problem was solved with having a clear strategy. But the bigger problem is passing it along through the relay chain.

Can you articulate your strategy in a way that survives the relay? Because that’s the difference between a strategy that’s sound and clear and one that actually drives action.

It’s what people pass along.

Do you design for that?

Keep lighting the path,
Michael

The Jensen Formula: How to make your strategy inevitable

When you watch a typical CEO keynote, you usually feel like you’re being sold to. You have your guards up and you are constantly looking for the holes in their argument.

When you watch Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, you don’t feel sold to. You feel informed. He walks you through a series of facts that seem undeniable.

How exactly does he do this?

Yesterday, I wrote about how he strips away the adjectives and builds his argument with nouns and verbs.

But having the right materials is only half the job.
You still need the blueprint.

Most leaders have the blueprint upside down.
They start with themselves.

They open the deck with: “Our Strategic Initiative 2026.”
Then they list their goals, their features, and their timeline.
Basically, they are showing you the pill before you even know you’re sick.

Jensen Huang builds it the other way around. He doesn’t start with Nvidia. He starts with the world. Which means, he doesn’t ask you to agree with his strategy. He forces you to agree with physics first. And once you agree with the physics, his strategy becomes the only logical conclusion.

It’s a 3-step formula. If you watch closely, he uses it in almost every major keynote.

1. The New Reality (the “broken” assumption)

The amateur says: “We are launching a new AI processor.”
Huang says: “General-purpose computing has run out of steam. Moore’s Law is dead.”

He identifies an External Shift (physics/market limits) that has fundamentally broken an Old Assumption (that CPUs will keep getting faster and cheaper). Put differently, he isn’t trying to sell an opinion. He is stating a fact that you cannot argue with.

2. The Necessity (the gap)

Now that the old way is dead, what does the world demand?

He says: “To keep scaling intelligence without bankrupting the planet, we need a new way to calculate. We need accelerated computing.”

He defines the New Capability required to survive in the New Reality.
(Note that he still hasn’t mentioned his product. He is defining the hole in the market so clearly that you are starting to beg for the plug.)

3. The Commitment (the only way out)

Only now, after he has broken your old assumption and defined the necessary fix, does he talk about himself.

He says: “That is why we built Blackwell.”

By the time he reveals the strategy, it doesn’t feel like a pitch. It feels like relief.
It feels like the only rational response to the reality he just described.

The pitch says: “Look at my great idea.”
The formula says: “Look at this broken world. Here is the only way to fix it.”

Let’s revisit the formula:

1. New Reality: [External Shift] has fundamentally broken [Old Assumption].
2. Necessity: This requires [New Capability] to function.
3. Commitment: [Our Strategy] is the only way to deliver [New Capability].

If you mess up step 1, step 3 is arrogant.
If you nail step 1, step 3 is inevitable.

Now, try it on your own strategy.

Don’t start with “We are implementing a Hybrid Work policy.” (That’s Step 3).
Start with: “We lost our last three
Senior Engineer candidates to
companies that offer flexibility” (Step 1).
Then: “We cannot build a world-class product with second-tier talent.” (Step 2).
Therefore: “We are implementing a
Hybrid Work policy.” (Step 3).

To put it in a nutshell: Don’t persuade people that your strategy is “good.” Prove that it is necessary.

Keep lighting the path,
Michael

PS: Read the full case study of how Jensen Huang communicates in my newest issue. If you use this link, you can access it free for a month, including the action guide, and cancel anytime.

Are you a visionary leader?

We spend too much time looking for “Visionary” leaders.

The word implies that the job of a leader is to hallucinate a future and then charisma-roll the organization into chasing it. Like if you can’t see around corners, you aren’t qualified to lead?

There is a lot of winner’s bias in telling the heroic stories of visionary leaders. The worst part is that “be visionary” is simply not repeatable and therefore, useless as a leadership lesson.

I’m much more interested in the lessons that are repeatable. Nvidia’s breathtaking 2016 pivot provides such a lesson. It suggests a different, much more accessible model:

Your job isn’t to be a prophet.
Your job is to be an architect.

An architect doesn’t “predict” that a building will stand. They understand the laws of physics (gravity, tension, compression, etc.) and they design a structure that aligns with those laws.

That’s exactly what Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang did.

Maybe he saw AI earlier than most of us. But their rise also had a much more grounded reason: It was very well architected. And phenomenally well communicated.

My newest essay on “What the Best Leaders Say” takes a very precise look at how exactly Huang did this.

If you ever needed to orient your team under uncertainty but didn’t have a crystal ball, this one is for you. What Huang did is very much repeatable.

It drops tomorrow morning.

Keep lighting the path,
Michael

PS: If you use this link, you’ll get access to the essay series free for a month and you can cancel anytime.

The weatherman doesn’t get wet

The weatherman predicts rain, but he doesn’t get wet if he’s wrong.

Most leaders are weathermen. They forecast bold futures and “strategic pillars,” but if the strategy fails, the team gets wet, not them.

A costly signal is what happens when you throw away your umbrella and walk outside.

It’s the act of tying your personal comfort, your bonus, or your reputation to the bet you are making with your strategy.

It proves you’re willing to go down this path even if the forecast is wrong.

Who is your team more likely to follow?

Keep lighting the path,
Michael

Why the “reasonable” exceptions are the worst


Does this loop feel familiar?
The killer word is “reasonable.” It’s always a reasonable exception, isn’t it?

The trap is the “good intentions”. Of course it “makes sense”. Of course there are good reasons. Many, in fact.

But focus means saying no to the 1000 good reasons in favor of the 1 real reason. That’s how progress happens.

The problem is that the trap isn’t easy to spot because it sounds so reasonable. I’ve collected a few examples I’ve heard last year:

“We’re moving to product-led growth” 
⤷ Except for enterprise sales

The CEO announces a pivot to self-service, freemium, product-led growth. Then adds: “Obviously, this doesn’t apply to enterprise deals over €100K.”

Within three months, the enterprise team consumes 80% of product development building custom features, the self-service experience remains broken, and the company is neither product-led nor sales-led.

“We’re focused on 3 strategic priorities”
⤷ Plus the CEO’s new idea

Leadership emerges from an offsite with clarity: DACH expansion, mobile launch, Q3 profitability.

Week 2: The CEO returns from a conference, excited about AI. She requests “just a small tiger team.”

By month 2, the AI project has pulled the CTO, two senior engineers, and half the roadmap conversation. The three priorities are now starved of attention.

“No more custom development”
⤷ Except when sales needs to close

The CTO declares custom development is killing scalability; prospects buy the platform as-is or they’re not the right fit.

Two weeks later, a €2 million deal requires a custom reporting module. Sales argues “this is strategic revenue.” The CTO caves.

Within six months, the product has 11 “strategic exceptions” and the standardized platform never materializes.

“We’re sunsetting legacy products”
⤷ Except for existing customers

The VP announces the company will no longer support three legacy products. Everything goes through the unified platform.

But Customer Success raises concerns about top accounts not being ready to migrate, so leadership grants “limited exceptions.”

Within a year, 60% of customers remain on legacy with extended support, and engineering maintains two completely separate codebases.

I told you. It’s always “reasonable”.
And it always reinforces organizational inertia.

It always costs time, money, and motivation.

And it always distracts from the new path.

True or not?

What’s your experience with “reasonable exceptions”?
How do you deal with them? Hit reply!

Keep lighting the path,
Michael

PS: The newest essay on “What the Best Leaders Say” looks at ways to escape the inertia trap.

The saddest day in any organization

The “scientific” proof of Blue Monday was just a PR stunt to get people to book their holidays early, but I’m sure that for many of you the feeling is still close to the truth regarding your organization.

The enthusiasm of a fresh start after the holidays is gone.

You’ve already made the first exception to your “rigorous” focus this year, because “it’s a loyal customer and we need to build this feature for them” or “this is an opportunity we can’t miss”. (And each one felt reasonable. Because it always is.)

The first “problems” were thrown your way. Some team members complained that we’ve always done it “that way”. And around today, most of you know what organizational inertia feels like.

You have – again – realized that changing the organization is harder than writing the strategy.

The “Saddest Day” for any organization is effectively the day the Status Quo wins.

→ The old priorities pull everything back into place.
→ The old language keeps winning.
→ The old defaults take over the decisions.

If that pattern feels familiar, you’re not alone. I’ve seen it in companies of all sizes across all industries.

When you look at what the best leaders do now, one thing’s pretty clear to me: You don’t need a new strategy, more training, and definitely not more announcements.

You need a very clear signal that the Status Quo is truly done. Words that make it feel harder to do the old thing than to do the new thing.

The newest premium essay on “What the Best Leaders Say” is about finding those words. It’s called “Escaping the Inertia Trap”.


When you subscribe with this link, you’ll get this issue and the next one free, with full access to the whole archive, including audio versions and action guides. It’s risk free. You can unsubscribe anytime.

So, will you escape the inertia trap this year?

Keep lighting the path,
Michael

How did we end up with seven top priorities again?

Some of you will be heading to your annual strategy retreat very soon. How wrong am I to assume that it will feel like a scene from Groundhog Day?

The same unfocused discussions as every year.
The same ambitious announcements.
The same hangover a few weeks later when everything’s back to before. As if the retreat was just some faded dream we had last night.

Suddenly, the new “focus” is the same old fuzzy direction (or five) as before, because “did you see what the newest Gemini model can do, we should really leverage this in our strategy.”

While the new “priority” is actually seven and it can change any day when a new customer comes along with an “interesting project”.

But the worst part is this: We look away. We treat it as normal.

Maybe because we think that’s what it is. It’s just how things are. Not much we can do about it.

And yet, we must. Because this endless cycle of scattered focus and changing direction has a price tag.

→ It shows up as slower delivery, higher burn, missed opportunities, and rework that should never have been necessary.

→ It shows up as teams hedging their bets because they don’t trust that today’s priority will still be the priority next week.

→ It shows up as leaders approving work that contradicts the strategy because saying no feels harder than absorbing the waste.

And the personal cost is just as high.

People burn out from useless work.

→ From pouring hours into tasks that will be undone in the next reshuffle.

→ From making decisions that get reversed because someone higher up changed the story overnight.

→ From caring about results that never materialize because the strategy keeps wobbling.

You lose morale.
You lose talent.
You lose speed.
You lose money.

Does this feel familiar? Maybe at some point, you even stopped fighting it.

You approved work you know does not quite fit.
You told yourself this is temporary.
You noticed the priorities multiplying.

But instead of naming it, you adapted.

The moment you recognize this matters more than the agenda for the next retreat. It’s often the first sign that orientation is missing.

I’ll leave you with one simple question for the weekend. Next week, when that moment shows up again, what will you do differently?

Keep lighting the path,
Michael

Get This Moment Counts in your inbox.
How exceptional leaders communicate when the message has to land

    I value your privacy. No spam. Just “Great stuff, brilliantly articulated” (to use the words of longtime reader David).