How to Be (and Be Seen as) Strategic

Strategy must fit the context and shorten its horizon as uncertainty increases, advancing through proximate objectives that validate direction. Leaders need to balance time/politics, context, direction, and execution to avoid common failure modes and to make strategy real. Product sets direction, technical reshapes context, teams must execute under constraints, and leaders must carve time to think so they are both strategic and seen as strategic.

Key Points

• Strategy is contextual; importing playbooks across companies or market phases (e.g., post-ZIRP) without adjustment leads to failure.
• In high uncertainty, prioritize proximate objectives—near-term, testable steps that confirm or correct direction—over distant visions.
• Effective strategy blends four ingredients: time/politics, context, direction (proximate objectives), and expertise/execution; imbalance creates common leadership anti-patterns.
• Product strategy drives direction; technical strategy should be problem-led and proactively change the delivery context; team strategy must execute despite constraints.
• Leaders need a personal strategy—time and space to think strategically and to make their strategic work visible—to actually be, and be seen as, strategic.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment of the Hacker News discussion is largely positive and in agreement with the article's core messages, particularly its relevance to the current economic climate and the distinction between visible and invisible strategy. While some critiques were raised regarding practical implementation and perceived lack of novelty, these did not overshadow the general appreciation for the article's insights and framework.

In Agreement

• True strategic work is often invisible because it prevents problems rather than solving them dramatically, making it hard to get recognition.
• The shift from the ZIRP era's growth-at-all-costs to disciplined execution and showing value quickly is spot on and resonates with current market realities.
• The need for strategy's timeframe to shorten due to increased uncertainty is crucial, as long-term plans are often obsolete before execution.
• The article nicely articulates recognizable failure modes, such as the 'empty thought leader' or 'solution-in-search-of-a-problem expert'.
• The principle that strategy is contextual, and blindly copying 'best practices' without understanding one's unique market, resources, or culture, is a critical insight.
• The breakdown into product, technical, team, and personal domains provides a good, useful framework for understanding strategic thinking at different levels and functions.
• Strategy that creates options and prevents drama, focusing on proactive problem-solving, is indeed a higher and more effective form of strategy than reactive efforts.

Opposed

• The article is too abstract and lacks practical implementation details for large, bureaucratic organizations, especially regarding the influence and navigation of 'politics.'
• It does not adequately define what 'strategic' means for most individual contributors (ICs) or provide realistic ways for them to carve out time for strategic thinking amidst heavy workloads and feature work.
• Some concepts, like 'proximate objectives' and 'deliver as you build,' are perceived as rehashed common sense or Agile principles presented with new buzzwords, lacking novelty.