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.

A good strategy is not always successful, but even an "inappropriate" strategy may be an actual strategy. A "bad strategy" is one that doesn't even try to address an important challenge. Instead, it speaks of aspirations, visions of the future, lays out performance goals, or simply lists a bunch of unconnected actions.

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

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

A real strategy is a coherent mix of policy and action designed to overcome a significant challenge. So a sensible employee might indeed say that they have no idea what the organization's strategy is - because it seems to have none. Senior managers' so-called "strategies" are heavy with aspirations and goals, but light on how resources and strengths will be combined to achieve them.

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.