A good strategy focuses efforts on a target, and that focus can only be achieved by not diffusing energy in other directions - that is the meaning of Michael Porter's dictum of "choosing what not to do." At the same time, a good strategy chooses the right target to focus on, not wasting the focus of energy on a target that cannot be affected or that is unimportant - that is the meaning of Drucker's distinction between efficiency and effectiveness.

A real strategy is not bottom up because it deals with issues that require unexpected or unusual types action, especially of coordination among units.

You overcome the logical resistance to change by proving that a new approach actually works, usually on a small scale.

One of the problems many leaders report is a gap between strategy and execution. Usually this "gap" arises because the so-called "strategy" is a set of financial performance goals, not an approach to overcoming challenges. The two key ways to narrow this gap are to avoid bad strategies that fail to explain how to proceed and to establish a proximate objective - something which can be accomplished and which will open the door to further progress.

The US needs military/defense, economic, and social strategies. A medium-sized business, by contrast, is normally best off focusing its efforts on a single crucial objective.

A good strategy focuses efforts on a target, and that focus can only be achieved by not diffusing energy in other directions - that is the meaning of Michael Porter's dictum of "choosing what not to do." At the same time, a good strategy chooses the right target to focus on, not wasting the focus of energy on a target that cannot be affected or that is unimportant - that is the meaning of Drucker's distinction between efficiency and effectiveness.

As I worked to explain how to avoid bad strategy, I began to see that one cannot really evaluate or criticize a strategy unless there is a fairly clear statement of the problem the strategy is trying to solve.