A lack of written documentation for strategic initiatives is often a deliberate tactic, not an oversight. By keeping big bets as verbal directives, executives can later pivot, reframe failure, or deny the original premise, effectively gaslighting their teams. This prevents creating a clear record for accountability.
Related Insights
Before a major initiative, run a simple thought experiment: what are the best and worst possible news headlines? If the worst-case headline is indefensible from a process, intent, or PR perspective, the risk may be too high. This forces teams to confront potential negative outcomes early.
When launching a new strategy, define the specific go/no-go decision criteria on paper from day one. This prevents "revisionist history" where success metrics are redefined later based on new fact patterns or biases. This practice forces discipline and creates clear accountability for future reviews.
Many professionals, especially in execution-focused roles, think strategically but are perceived as tactical. Their failure is not in thinking, but in articulating their strategy, programatizing their work, and knowing when to communicate it. This gap between thought and communication leads to the negative label.
The 'fake press release' is a useful vision-setting tool, but a 'pre-mortem' is more tactical. It involves writing out two scenarios before a project starts: one detailing exactly *why* it succeeded (e.g., team structure, metrics alignment) and another detailing *why* it failed. This forces a proactive discussion of process and risks, not just the desired outcome.
"Seagull leadership" is dropping a new idea on your team without a clear plan for implementation, support, or training. To avoid this, leaders must meticulously plan every step of a new initiative—from process to customer impact—before presenting it to the team.
Even with a solid plan, failing to communicate it *before* execution makes you seem reactive. Leaders perceive strategy through proactive announcements. Stating what you are going to do frames your actions as deliberate, while explaining them only when asked sounds defensive and tactical.
Executives often avoid acknowledging a team's technical skill gaps, believing it damages morale. In reality, this sets the team up for failure by forcing them to say 'yes' to impossible tasks. Openly identifying gaps allows for a realistic plan to train, hire, or partner.
Leaders often avoid sharing negative news to "not scare the children." However, this creates an information vacuum that teams will fill with the "darkest ideas available" from other sources. Leaders must compete with misinformation by providing clear, honest context, even when it's difficult.
To inject responsibility into a speed-obsessed culture, frame the conversation around specific risks. Create documented assumptions about what might break and, crucially, identify who bears the impact if things go wrong. This forces a deliberate consideration of consequences.
When strategic direction is unclear due to leadership changes, waiting for clarity leads to stagnation. The better approach is to create a draft plan with the explicit understanding it may be discarded. This provides a starting point for new leadership and maintains team momentum, so long as you are psychologically prepared to pivot.