Conversation

Cedric Chin
@ejames_c
I am about 90% convinced that Good Strategy Bad Strategy is a bad book. Two questions: 1. What is something actionable you took away from the book? 2. In a year’s time, circle back and ask: what changes did I make as a result of that takeaway?
15
46
Cedric Chin
@ejames_c
In most cases, people give me a semi-profound answer to the first question. Usually it’s the ‘kernel of good strategy’ or ‘what bad strategy looks like’ The answer to the second question is almost invariably ‘nothing.’
1
6
Cedric Chin
@ejames_c
Contrast this to 7 Powers, where the takeaway (for those who understand or have experienced competitive arbitrage): - there are really only 7 types of economic moats, or ‘Powers’ - there are at most 3 Powers you may build at a given stage - Power comes from discovery+execution
2
14
Cedric Chin
@ejames_c
I haven’t fully figured out why the book is so useless. I think it’s some combination of: - Rumelt has good points to make about what good strategy looks like. But so what? - His proposed method to get to one doesn’t tackle the hardest bit, which is context-dependent diagnosis
1
10
Cedric Chin
@ejames_c
- The framework doesn’t carve the problem at the joints, reducing it to the core question you must answer for strategy to work (beat the competition) - As a result it feels actionable but it isn’t, really.
2
8
Cedric Chin
@ejames_c
The reason I say ‘90% convinced’ is because of the “here is what bad strategy looks like” piece — which is genuinely useful as a pattern matching example. But that’s the limit, I think: - sufficiently thoughtful execs should know this - what to do instead? Book has 0 clue.
2
7
Cedric Chin
@ejames_c
I can’t in good conscience recommend a ~300 page book where the chief value is a useful negative example. I should probably write a summary that compresses this useful bit, so that nobody has to read it and recommend it (to me) ever again. 😤
3
12