The best answer to this puzzle is that the real surprise was that such a pure and focused strategy was actually implemented. Most complex organizations spread rather than concentrate resources, acting to placate and pay off internal and external interests. Thus, we are surprised when a complex organization, such as Apple or the U.S. Army, actually focuses its actions. Not because of secrecy, but because good strategy itself is unexpected.
Related Quotes
Yet this whole midlevel framework misses two huge, incredibly important natural sources of
strength:
- Having a coherent strategyâone that coordinates policies and actions. A good strategy doesnât just draw on existing strength; it creates strength through the coherence of its design. Most organizations of any size donât do this. Rather, they pursue multiple objectives that are unconnected with one another or, worse, that conflict with one another.
- The creation of new strengths through subtle shifts in viewpoint. An insightful reframing of a competitive situation can create whole new patterns of advantage and weakness.
DARPAâs surprising strategy has a shape and structure common to all good strategy. It follows from a careful definition of the challenge. It anticipates the real-world difficulties to be overcome. It eschews fluff. It creates policies that concentrate resources and actions on surmounting those difficulties.
Strategies focus resources, energy, and attention on some objectives rather than others. Unless collective ruin is imminent, a change in strategy will make some people worse off. Hence, there will be powerful forces opposed to almost any change in strategy. This is the fate of many strategy initiatives in large organizations. There may be talk about focusing on this or pushing on that, but at the end of the day no one wants to change what they are doing very much. When organizations are unable to make new strategiesâwhen people evade the work of choosing among different paths into the futureâthen you get vague mom-and-apple-pie goals that everyone can agree on. Such goals are direct evidence of leadershipâs insufficient will or political power to make or enforce hard choices. Put differently, universal buy-in usually signals the absence of choice.
Thus, we should seek coordinated policies only when the gains are very large. There will be costs to demanding coordination, because it will ride roughshod over economies of specialization and more nuanced local responses. The brilliance of good organization is not in making sure that everything is connected to everything else. Down that road lies a frozen
maladaptive stasis. Good strategy and good organization lie in specializing on the right activities and imposing only the essential amount of coordination.
âIf the business is really successful, then there is usually a good strategic logic behind that success, be it hidden or not. But the truth is that many companies, especially large complex companies, donât really have strategies. At the core, strategy is about focus, and most complex organizations donât focus their resources. Instead, they pursue multiple goals at once, not concentrating enough resources to achieve a breakthrough in any of them.