A thousand objections and no decision

In a very good strategy, you can find a thousand weaknesses. In a very bad one, a thousand strengths.

All it takes is to have decided what you want to prove.

Focus can be presented as a lack of ambition. Spreading ourselves thin as openness to the world. The same risk can be called “boldness” when we take it and “recklessness” when someone else proposes it.

We can select the evidence that supports our position, exaggerate a secondary weakness or overlook a critical assumption because we like the conclusion. And do all of this using impeccably professional language.

That is why a discussion can sound strategic while, in reality, it is negotiating the status of the people taking part.

Who will appear more perceptive? Who will be proved right? Who will retain the right to say later, “I warned you”?

The business, meanwhile, is waiting for a decision.

Strategy pays the cost of personal safety

Around an evaluation table, a convenient asymmetry can operate. The person proposing a direction takes a visible position. They need to defend specific choices and accept that reality may prove them wrong.

The person who confines themselves to general reservations can avoid that exposure. “Not all risks have been examined” is almost impossible to disprove. The future will always contain something that was not examined.

If you do not have to explain how significant the risk you identify is, and what it changes in the decision, you can remain indefinitely cautious and personally protected.

In such a system, the business is charged with the cost of inaction while the evaluator is credited with foresight.

This behaviour may be connected to ego. It may also be an adaptation to a management team that punishes a failed recommendation but never examines the cost of a missed opportunity. When a proposal carries a name and a postponement leaves no trace, caution becomes professionally advantageous.

A strategy can deteriorate as it is improved

The quality of a strategy does not come from adding up its strengths and subtracting its weaknesses. Weaknesses carry different weight. Some can be corrected during implementation. Others are the deliberate cost of a choice. Some invalidate the mechanism on which the entire proposal rests.

If a business chooses to specialise, it will abandon some opportunities. Pointing out that loss is the beginning of the evaluation. To reach a conclusion, we must examine whether the value of specialisation justifies the sacrifice.

This requires prioritisation. It also requires the ability to recognise that a weakness we identified may not be important enough to change the choice.

When every objection carries equal weight, the strategy starts changing to get through the evaluation table. We add another market to satisfy the sales department. We retain a service we had decided to abandon so that nobody is displeased. We avoid stopping activities, even though resources are insufficient.

Each participant secures their own concession. In the end, the presentation has fewer points that cause discomfort and the business has more commitments that conflict.

The strategy can now be approved unanimously. But it has lost the choice that gave it coherence.

Leadership must also be able to stand by a reasoned decision not to incorporate an observation. Otherwise, evaluation becomes a negotiation of exceptions.

The double standard that protects the status quo

Another distortion appears when we demand proof from every new strategy that we do not demand from continuing on the current path.

The new proposal must answer what will happen if it fails. The existing situation may continue without anyone explaining what will happen if it stays as it is. Its familiarity gives it an innocence it has not earned.

Change is thus presented as taking a risk, and inaction as a neutral stance. Even when the current path consumes resources without delivering sufficient results.

Perfection becomes a prerequisite we demand only of change.

This standard favours postponement from the outset. A workable proposal, with visible costs and real constraints, can always lose to a vague expectation that something better will appear later.

Honest evaluation compares real options. It examines the cost of action alongside the cost of waiting. And it requires anyone recommending “let’s not proceed” to explain which course they support and why they consider it preferable.

Judgement must be open to scrutiny

Removing subjectivity entirely is impossible. Strategy involves judgement under uncertainty. The business chooses priorities and decides how much risk it can withstand. These choices do not emerge automatically from a table of data.

We can, however, limit arbitrariness. My starting point would be four agreements that bind the proposer and the evaluator equally.

We agree on exactly what we are trying to achieve

The goal, time horizon and constraints are defined before we judge the specific proposal. If the aim is greater profitability, a potential loss of revenue needs to be examined in relation to that aim. If we change the goal whenever an argument appears that does not suit us, there is no stable basis for evaluation.

We state what we know and what we assume

A prediction, a professional judgement and a confirmed fact carry different weight. The statement “customers will not accept it” needs to be connected to what we know about those particular customers. If it is an assumption, we specify how it will be tested. We also state from the outset the boundaries the business will not negotiate. Our preferences do not need to disguise themselves as data.

We prioritise what can change the choice

Every critical objection must be connected to a specific assumption and a consequence. What exactly could fail? How strong is the evidence? If it happens, can it be corrected, or does it exceed what the business can withstand? Management needs to focus on the few issues that determine whether the choice is viable. An average of positive scores can easily conceal a decisive gap.

We define what would make us reconsider

“What evidence would make me change my mind?” may be the most revealing question in the discussion. When no evidence can affect a business prediction, it is no longer being examined. It has become a position to defend. We agree on what we will check, who will check it and when we will return to the decision. Where possible, we test the critical assumption before increasing our commitment.

These agreements leave room for disagreement. But they ask it to produce something the business can use.

Disagreement does not need the proposer’s permission

A clear distinction is needed here. “If you don’t have a better solution, don’t speak” is also a convenient way to protect the creator of a bad strategy.

Someone may prove that a critical fact is wrong without having a complete alternative plan ready. Their contribution is enough to require reconsideration. The burden of evidence remains with the person asking for resources to be committed to their proposal.

Constructive criticism also includes a substantiated rejection. The evaluator must explain how their objection affects the choice. Their recommendation may be a modification, an additional check or not making that particular move.

Management closes this process with a clear decision and responsibility. If more evidence is needed, it specifies what evidence and by when. If the risk is acceptable, it says so. If the proposal is rejected, it records the substantive reason. Uncertainty remains, but the team gains direction.

The same rule binds the leader first. When they demand rigorous evidence for every objection while their own proposal rests on “I know”, they are using evaluation to validate themselves. A position in the hierarchy exempts no one from scrutiny of their assumptions.

At a mature strategy table, credibility includes the ability to recognise which evidence changed your judgement. Reconsidering can improve the decision, and leadership must allow it without personal disparagement.

We can always find one more weakness. Our responsibility is to decide what that weakness means for the business’s next move.

The value of our presence at a table shows in the quality of the decision we helped make.

The business does not exist to keep us infallible.