Strategy #16: Strategies don't fail at the planning stage, but when prioritizing them.

In 1997, Steve Jobs returned to Apple as interim CEO. The company was losing money and had only a few months left before bankruptcy.

The first thing he did wasn't announcing a new vision, nor hiring consultants, and nor holding a strategic retreat.

He called the management team into a conference room and reviewed Apple's product catalog at the time, which contained more than [amount]. 350 items Then he cut it off until only... 10 items

Many executives in the room thought he was about to ruin the company, but Jobs said that... "Deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what to do," or simply put, "Choosing not to do something is just as important as choosing what to do."

We all know what happened after that.

I'm telling this story because what Jobs did that day wasn't just about cutting products; it was about confirming that real strategy doesn't start with adding items, but with daring to say, "This is less important."

And this is what I see repeatedly in the organizations I've spoken with. Many organizations don't lack strategy, vision, or plans; what they lack is the ability to say, "What is more important than what?"

Saying that one thing is important isn't difficult. The difficult part is admitting that another thing is less important, because saying that often upsets people in the organization.

When everything seems important, it means nothing is truly important.

In corporate strategy meetings, we hear these things very often: AI is important, customers are important, cost is important, innovation is important, people are important, speed is important. Every word is correct.

The problem is, when everything is labeled a priority, nobody knows what should come first when two things clash. When AI requires a budget, but costs must be reduced, who decides? When customers demand speed, but compliance demands thoroughness, who is responsible? And in that vacuum, who knows what to do? Most people in an organization will choose the safest option for themselves, not necessarily the best option.For organizations, ultimately, "priority" becomes just a fancy word on a wish list.

Fear of Missing Out (FOMO)... is not a strategy.

In the AI ​​era, what I see in many organizations is movement driven more by fear of being left behind than by a clear direction. They see others talking about AI, so they rush into implementing it. They see others setting up data teams, so they rush to do so. They see others buying tools, so they rush to buy them too.

There's nothing wrong with following that model, but if you can't answer the question, "What organizational capability will this change?", then it will just be an activity, not a strategy.

• AI without good data might just be an expensive toy.
• A dashboard that nobody makes decisions from is just a prettier-looking screen.
• A pilot project that is never scaled up is merely proof that the organization has tried (and is sometimes even counted as innovation in annual reports).

FOMO may allow organizations to start early, but discipline enables them to make the right choices.

The correct question is, "What should we stop?" not "What should we add?"

In the previous article, we discussed how the world is competing with factories, chips, data centers, and energy. The advantage isn't in the country that announces the most impressive plan, but in the country that makes that plan a reality first.

The same applies to organizations. Organizations don't win because they have more strategic themes, but because they make clearer choices and make those choices a reality.

In a previous article discussing "organizational gravity," we saw that new strategies built on top of existing systems often lose to the old systems. The old systems don't win with a loud bang; they win through habit, quietly.

Therefore, the question leaders should ask themselves is not just, "What more can we do?" but, "What can we stop doing to allow space for the important issues to actually happen?"

If AI is important, what tasks should organizations reduce to free up people's time for it? If transformation is important, what KPIs are still pulling people back to old behaviors and need to be changed? If innovation is important, what kind of punishments for failure need to be stopped first?

Because a new strategy that changes nothing in the old system isn't a strategy at all; it's just a new mask placed on top of the old one.

Making good decisions requires shifting priorities.

In a previous article, we discussed Decision Transformation and Decision Governance, highlighting how AI is making decisions more disciplined for organizations. But what I want to add today is that good decision-making shouldn't end with simply saying "I agree."

Because in most organizations, "agreeing" doesn't always mean "actually doing it." A good decision requires a change—whether it's the budget, personnel, client, performance indicators, or a project being put on hold—to make room for more important matters.

"This is where strategy moves out of PowerPoint and into the actual organizational system."

A good strategy requires some compromises.

Jobs wasn't a genius because he knew what product to make; he was a genius because he dared to decide not to do something and stood by that decision, even if those around him disagreed.

A good strategy is measured by the clarity of its choices, not the number of initiatives. It chooses what to do and what not to do. It chooses what to prioritize and what to sacrifice in order to make the important things happen.

A strategy that everyone agrees on isn't a real strategy until the organization actually has to make choices and accept that there will be some things we need to prioritize less.

Because strategies don't fail at the planning stage; they often fail at the prioritization stage. Therefore, the crucial question for leaders today isn't just, "What strategy do we have?" but, "When everything else is important, do we dare to choose what is most important?"

In the next episode, we'll continue our discussion on how, once an organization has made a choice, we can actually make that choice happen within the system.