- The good ol’BCG matrix is still very, very valid today, with most large orgs stiffly in the bottom right corner (Dogs) or less right but all desperately trying to move their business to the left. Some realising that they should, in fact, be on the upper deck but just can’t move there – is all they can, especially qua mind, incapable ..? Just hinting, not saying (outright).
- Startups-to-scale-ups and what have we, the loose gun set, are quite in the upper left corner.
- All the biggies want to be more like
Elvis<previous bullet> and not realise that of what they have been told by others to want to be, all agile’y flex’y start-up Millennial culture loosely connected companies, 95%++ fails. Skipping for a moment that the M generation already has been atoned into a gen that strives for (income and other) stability and protection more than we’ve seen for a long while, and ones already have to look much further. Writing off the middle section; too bad qua societal costs but they’ve never been educated, trained or experienced to amount to much, overprotected as they were. Also not writing off the 45+ bunch, that do have tons of inspiration, stamina, education (sic), training and experience, plus energy to innovate.
- But foremost, I learned from analysis and introspection [processing mindfully in a calm eye of the stormy world], that the main cause of current Schumpeterian failure stems from the fear-of-death cling to the ‘Management Control Cycle’ which in its current-day almost-exclusive form isn’t about management or control, nor is it a proper cycle. Since it’s confused too much [Dutch government / governance babblers: near-completely everywhere] with the ‘PDCA’ cycle.
- What needs to change, is all that <previous bullet> BS. Into supportive, facilitating management. Remember, one should hire the people to do what they’re best at, and then let them ..? Well, there’s a little (sic) thing left out there, which is: What is left for you yourself then? The answer to that is: What you would want to do: Take risks! Like a. extremely well-considered risk-based decisions, also about what not to do [McK: If it ain’t a choice to not do something else, your idea isn’t a strategy proper you’re just an indecisive coward]; b. yes you should from there, instigate strategy execution without which your ‘strategy’ is an abuse of that word or anything; c. Yes you may be wrong but only if you didn’t risk-base your decisions properly i.e., didn’t use all available info to the max [and still at some point decided enough is enough and didn’t choke for fear of choice] and if you didn’t take Von Moltke to heart.
Which’all leads to the following:
Do we need to add …?
Do you dare this …!?
Yeah, I know, I know, there’s so much that can be added to this… E.g., this. Go ahead, add. As if that either diminishes the purpose of the above or there’s no extension possible to it, for varying assumptions about what it stands for.
For the view:
[‘Strategy’ may also lock you up in an outdated paradigm…! Ávila]