A business view of strategy but also one of the few to make strategic thinking something more specific than post-hoc history written by the winner.

The book could be condensed to something much shorter... ( )

Rumelt provides a fascinating discussion of strategy, but don't expect any easy models for good strategy. For Rumelt, good strategy requires both hard work, analysing issues, and a creative insight. In contrast bad strategy appears to be everywhere (often camouflaged - or revealed - by a cloud of gobbledegook) touted by consultants with out of the box models and managers with complete faith in their capacity for charismatic leadership. ( )

The author claims to have coined the term "bad strategy," which seems to be defined as tactics. The idea here is simple--goals are aspirational, objectives are attainable--and there are plenty of anecdotes ready to deploy when a project seems to be going off the rails.

One of the best book on strategy I have ever read. At first, I checked the author, Richard Rumelt and found out that he is a college professor. This fact brought some doubts regarding his authentic experience in the field of corporate strategy. At the moment, I can admit that my prejudice was without merit. Moreover, even some classroom narratives turned out to be in-depth and accurate case studies.

The key message of the book is an honest, intellectual assessment of your own thinking. Good Strategy Bad Strategy is full of relevant and incisive cases in business, government and military sectors – presenting those fine strategies are built on sincere mindset.

Getting down to essentials, the book is divided into three major chunks:
1. Good and bad strategies which addresses the differences between these two groups.
2. Sources of power... (if you like to read my full review please visit my blog: https://leadersarereaders.blog/2018/11/05/good-strategy-bad-strategy-the-differe... ( )

Another book too full of itself and another author too full of himself. A plethora of repetitious anecdotes and little value from them. Rumelt accuses Cornell University of bloviating, but doesn't turn his acerbic lens to a mirror. He clearly misunderstands (or deliberately misunderstands) the difference between mission and vision, and strategy.

With respect to the anecdotes, assuming his analysis is correct, it is stunning to me that there are so many examples of non-strategic notions. Strategy is "how", not "what" (it could be the author's perception, but he does have a pedigree, so...) End results are not strategy, and the author seems to want to lead the reader to believe all of his bad examples don't get this. I find that hard to believe. And as such, I wonder if Rumelt didn't craft his story to the shape of his story.

Bottom line, there are good strategies and bad strategies. And I gather the author has experience with each. But he doesn't do a good job relating which is which. Oh, he does explain his positions...but I think he cherry-picks his examples. And that is disingenuous. So...loses points.

I have a lot more notes, but I don't think this is worth the time to transcribe them. Pretentious of me? Perhaps. Okay, yes. But that's the impression I got of Rumelt. Pretentious. Unbecoming of me, and I should take the higher road.

So I did. (thus 2 stars) ( )