The Strategy Paradox Quotes

“The strategy paradox arises from the need to commit in the face of unavoidable uncertainty. The solution to the paradox is to separate the management of commitments from the management of uncertainty. Since uncertainty increases with the time horizon under consideration, the basis for the allocation of decision making is the time horizon for which different levels of the hierarchy are responsible: the corporate office, responsible for the longest time horizon, must focus on managing uncertainty, while operating managers must focus on delivering on commitments. This is the principle of Requisite Uncertainty. A critically important tool in applying Requisite Uncertainty is Strategic Flexibility, a framework for identifying uncertainties and developing the options needed to mitigate risk or exploit opportunity.”
― Michael E. Raynor, The Strategy Paradox: Why committing to success leads to failure

“The result is the Strategy Paradox: strategies with the greatest possibility of success also have the greatest possibility of failure. Resolving this paradox requires a new way of thinking about strategy and uncertainty.”
― Michael E. Raynor, The Strategy Paradox: Why committing to success leads to failure

“The strategy paradox is that the prerequisites of success are often the antecedents of failure. Faced with this painful trade-off between the returns to bold commitment and the risk of making the wrong commitment, most organizations forgo the possibility of glory for an existence bereft of greatness.”
― Michael E. Raynor, The Strategy Paradox: Why committing to success leads to failure

“The strategy paradox arises from the need to make strategic commitments in the face of strategic uncertainty. Strategic uncertainty—which is different from operational or financial uncertainty—increases as one attempts to plan over longer time horizons. The traditional hierarchy provides a foundation for managing strategic uncertainty, because hierarchies function best when the levels within them are defined by the time horizons the managers at each level are responsible for. As a result, each level in a hierarchy copes with different degrees of strategic uncertainty. Lower levels have very little strategic latitude, focusing instead on delivering against past commitments, while higher levels manage strategic uncertainty more actively by mitigating strategic risk and positioning the firm to exploit future strategic opportunities. Midlevel managers in charge of operating divisions must translate the possibilities created by senior management into commitments that functional management must fulfill.”
― Michael E. Raynor, The Strategy Paradox: Why committing to success leads to failure

“adaptability works only when an organization can match its pace of change to that of the environment. Change that proceeds either faster or slower than the organization can respond creates insurmountable problems. In addition, fast and slow changes impinge on an organization simultaneously, and a company cannot adapt at different rates at the same time. Consequently, adaptation is limited in its applicability and is far from a sufficient response to the challenges posed by strategic uncertainty.”
― Michael E. Raynor, The Strategy Paradox: Why committing to success leads to failure

“Operating divisions that manage their own long-term strategic uncertainty will most likely end up mediocre performers, avoiding high-risk bets to increase their odds of survival. In addition, since great performance demands relentless focus on a particular strategy, devoting resources—especially management time and attention—to creating options is typically beyond the capacity of an operating division. Consequently, Strategic Flexibility is not something a successful operating division can typically create for itself. Only by focusing the corporate office on the management of uncertainty can the overall corporation achieve high results (thanks to commitment-focused divisions) at lower risk (thanks to the uncertainty-focused corporate office).”
― Michael E. Raynor, The Strategy Paradox: Why committing to success leads to failure