Strategy is not a group exercise
Consensus builds harmony. It rarely builds direction.
There’s something I’ve seen again and again in Norwegian startups, scaleups, and corporate ventures. It’s not a lack of intelligence or ambition. It’s that very few companies have a real strategy.
Not a nice slogan.
Not a “this year we focus on growth” slide.
Not a list of priorities everyone contributed to.
I mean the kind of strategy that actually guides decisions.
The kind that gives a team direction when things get messy.
The kind that protects you from drift before you even notice it’s happening.
And I’ve come to think that our cultural instincts around consensus have something to do with it.
Consensus is safe. Strategy isn’t.
Norwegian organisations often inherit a consensus reflex. We listen carefully. We involve everyone. We avoid pushing too hard. We want people to feel ownership.
All good intentions. But in strategy work, they often have an unintended side effect.
I’ve sat in leadership meetings where the founder had a sharp direction in mind, but softened it to avoid discomfort. I’ve also seen strategy processes where fifteen people “co-created” the direction.
Everyone felt included, but the strategy had been polished into something that means nothing and changes nothing.
Consensus feels harmonious. Clarity rarely does.
Because clarity forces a choice. It requires saying no to things that might be important. It creates focus by removing comfort. And it exposes disagreements we prefer to avoid.
That’s uncomfortable for most teams — and even more uncomfortable for most leaders.
Strategy also requires a certain temperament
People who are naturally good at strategy often have traits that look slightly disruptive inside consensus-oriented cultures.
They connect dots quickly.
They see consequences early.
They don’t obsess over details.
They challenge assumptions as a habit.
They enjoy a clean argument.
They act when others want more certainty or ask for more data.
These traits can look impatient or blunt. But they are often exactly what creates the clarity a team actually needs.
Without someone willing to take responsibility for the argument, strategy dissolves into preferences.
So what is strategy, really?
It’s not a mission.
Not a goal.
Not “becoming the leading platform in the Nordics.”
These are fine ideas, but they are not strategy.
Strategy is an argument.
A reasoned explanation of how you intend to win your game and why this approach gives you an advantage.
A real strategic argument sounds something like:
“We are the only [company category] that solves a specific pain in a specific way.
We win by doing Y.
Our competitors focus on X,Y,Z.
We choose not to do X and concentrate on Y because Y is the reason ...”
A claim.
A trade-off.
A because.
If you remove the “because”, the strategy disappears.
A clear example to illustrate this
Before Tesla became what it is today, its argument was brutally simple:
“We win the EV market by starting with high-end performance vehicles for early adopters.
This gives us margin to reinvest and eventually reach mass-market buyers.
We do not start with affordable cars because we cannot win that game on day one.”
Short. Directional. Built on a conscious trade-off.
Even people who disagreed with it could repeat it. That’s what makes it strategy.
Why this matters even more after funding
Once a company raises money, complexity jumps. More people join. More ideas enter the room. More parallel projects start. Urgency drops at the exact moment pressure rises.
This is when drift quietly becomes a real threat.
Without a strong argument, teams default to consensus. Everyone shapes. Everyone tweaks. Everyone contributes. But nobody leads the direction.
It’s well-intentioned. And it’s exactly how companies lose clarity without noticing.
A test you can run this week
Ask yourself:
Can your team repeat your strategy argument tomorrow, in their own words and without a slide deck?
If not, you don’t yet have a strategic argument. You have a set of suggestions.
A real strategy is memorable, disagreeable, and directional. It says no to many things that seem important. And because of that, it makes the company lighter, faster, and far easier to run.
Clarity is often uncomfortable. But companies are always healthier when they have it.
I am in the process pf building my reader base and therefore all shares are very much appreciated.
Previous posts
If you missed my previous posts in this series, here they are:
I write every week for founders who want sharper direction and less noise in their company. If that is you, join the newsletter.