When the organization grew1 beyond about 60 people, it felt different. We have agreed that a new management layer (between myself and tech-leads) is needed. But, I’ve started to lose a grip on what is happening in details. Suddenly, there were projects I was not aware of. There have been technical decisions being made, which I was never consulted about. On one side it felt good – the teams are growing independent of me; on the other side it felt wrong, especially for moment, where I had different ideas. Initially, I just wanted to deep dive into those. Second idea was around designing some architecture body to review key changes. They are not completely wrong2. Instead of review board, one can combine RFCs (written narratives) and proper delegation to allow the right people be part of the decision process.

Despite being a fairly strategic person by nature, what I was missing was more deliberate alignment among the teams about ad-hoc challenges as well as long-term direction.

Visions are higher-level aspirational documents, which allow individuals who don’t work often together to make compatible decisions, which align with the overall direction of the organization. Strategies are more practical, explaining medium to long-term plans, resource allocation, and general approaches to tackle specific challenges and achieve the vision. Tactics or execution are the specific, short-term actions and methods used to execute the strategy, often involving day-to-day or week-to-week activities carried out by teams or individuals. Vision is the why, strategy what and tactics how3.

| | Vision | Strategy | Tactics | | | —— | –––– | —–– | | Purpose | Gentle pull in the same direction | Addressing the specific challenge | Executing the strategy | | Focus | Why | What | How | | Tone | Aspirational | Practical | Practical / Actionable | | Time frame | Long-term (many quarters, years) | Midterm (few quarters) | Short-term (days, weeks, months) | | Level of detail | High-level | Decent level of details, accurate | Highly specific and concrete | | Quantity | Very few (minimal number) | Numerous | Numerous | | Flexibility | Relatively fixed | Adaptable | Highly flexible | | Measurement | Difficult to measure directly | Measurable through KPIs | Easily measurable outcomes | | Reusability | Unique to the organization | Specific to goals and challenges | Often reusable across different strategies (and companies) |

There are a lot of different formats on the Interweb. You have to experiment, it will take time. When it started to click for me was a moment, when I was forced to write strategies covering teams with seemingly very orthogonal needs and directions. That forced appropriate level of abstraction and pushed me away from way too detailed, technical documents. Let’s focus on the strategy first4.

Strategy

Strategy needs to be able to figure out what we will need to do to win (deliver on vision). That inherently involves a lot of what we will not do as well. It has to be candid about the status quo and surroundings (what are the boundaries and limitations). It has to inform actions in day-to-day word. Great starting point is the structure described by Richard Rumelt in his book “Good Strategy, Bad Strategy”. It consists of three components – diagnostics, policies and actions.

• Diagnosis describes the root of the topic (problem, challenge, …) at hand. It mentions factors leading to challenge as well as any constrains we need to deal with during the solution. Example of the initial diagnosis:

Our engineering teams are struggling with slow release cycles and high bug rates, leading to decreased customer satisfaction and missed market opportunities. The root causes include siloed development processes, inadequate automated testing, and a lack of clear communication channels between development, operations, and product teams. Furthermore, our legacy systems are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain and integrate with modern technologies, hampering our ability to innovate rapidly.

Guiding policies is a set of policies used to address the challenge. The key is that these contain (implicit or explicit) trade-offs. If it doesn’t hurt, be suspicious.

Coherent actions are specific actions which applies your guiding policy to address the diagnosis. It lays down the hard decisions being made and telling to the world. Two examples of guiding policy vs actions:

We will prioritize code quality and team collaboration over short-term feature delivery speed.

• Allocate 20% of each developer’s time to code reviews and pair programming.
• Reduce the number of large (XL) features planned for the quarter from 8 to 5.
• Implement a “no merge without review” policy in our version control system.

We will focus on deepening relationships with existing enterprise customers rather than aggressively pursuing new markets.

• Reassign 30% of the sales team from new customer acquisition to account management roles.
• Develop and launch a customer loyalty program for enterprise clients.
• Increase the budget for customization and integration services by 25%.
• Reduce marketing spend on new market outreach by 40%.
• Implement quarterly executive-level check-ins with top 20 customers.

Useful strategies seem to share certain characteristics5:

• Clear: Goes to the point, removes fluff6. Make complex things simple7.
• Honest: Doesn’t skip calling out the hard truths.
• Decisive: Makes the decisions and makes them clear.
• Long-term: Trade quick win for sustainability. Guiding policy should be adaptable enough.
• Moat-aware: Built on (ideally) unique strengths of the organization.
• Measurable: Includes clear metrics or indicators to track progress and success.

Clear

Clarity is essential for effective strategy. A clear strategy cuts through complexity and communicates direction without ambiguity. When teams across an organization can easily understand the strategy, they can make aligned decisions without constant coordination. This becomes increasingly important as organizations scale beyond the point where direct communication is feasible. Clear strategies avoid jargon, focus on the essential points, and can be easily remembered and referenced. They answer the “what” questions directly, making it obvious to everyone what path the organization is taking and, equally important, what paths it’s deliberately not taking.

This can make strategy sounds obvious. Humans have tendency to expect or lean towards complex solutions to complex problems. Thus being obvious increases changes to be remembered and believed. Also, there can be more than one “obvious” choice. Through calling out the choice, we create focus.

The problem at hand is complex, thus creating a clear narrative on how to tackle it is non-trivial8. Writing down a clear strategy is not about ignoring complexity, but rather processing it, creating a clear description which will remove need for re-processing all the information for other people (including the author) in the future.

You know, that you are on the right track, when it starts to feel elegant.

Honest

Honesty in strategy means confronting reality rather than wishful thinking. An honest strategy acknowledges current limitations, competitive threats, and organizational weaknesses instead of glossing over them. This candor builds credibility and trust with the teams implementing the strategy. When a strategy honestly addresses the diagnosis of challenges, it creates a solid foundation for the guiding policies and coherent actions that follow. Without this honesty, teams may pursue unrealistic goals or fail to prepare for predictable obstacles9.

Decisive

Decisiveness is a cornerstone of effective strategy. A strategy that hedges or tries to accommodate every possible direction ultimately provides no guidance at all. The value of strategy lies precisely in its ability to make clear choices between competing options and priorities. As highlighted in the guiding policies examples, good strategies explicitly state what will be prioritized (e.g., code quality) and what will be de-prioritized (e.g., short-term feature delivery speed). These decisions create clarity for teams operating independently, allowing them to make consistent choices without constant coordination. In distributed organizations, this decisiveness becomes even more critical as it empowers teams to act autonomously while still moving in a coherent direction. Remember that strategy is as much about what you choose not to do as what you choose to do.

Long-term

Effective strategies maintain a long-term perspective while guiding immediate actions. They bridge the gap between the aspirational vision and day-to-day tactics by establishing a sustainable path forward. When formulating strategy, it’s valuable to distinguish between one-way and two-way door decisions. One-way door decisions are difficult or impossible to reverse (like architectural choices that would require massive rewrites) and demand careful consideration of long-term implications. Two-way door decisions can be more easily reversed and allow for experimentation with less risk. Good strategies future-proof the organization by making one-way door decisions that align with long-term vision, while maintaining flexibility with two-way door decisions that can adapt to changing circumstances. This balance ensures the strategy remains relevant beyond immediate challenges while still providing practical guidance for today’s decisions.

Moat-aware

A strategy that leverages an organization’s unique strengths or “moats” is inherently more sustainable and effective. Moats are the distinctive advantages that are difficult for competitors to replicate—they might be technical expertise, proprietary technology, network effects, brand reputation, or unique processes. Being moat-aware means crafting strategies that build upon and reinforce these advantages rather than pursuing directions where the organization has no natural edge. As noted in the characteristics of useful strategies, moat-awareness involves building on the unique strengths of the organization. In distributed engineering organizations, this might mean leveraging specialized knowledge across different teams or creating systems that become more valuable as they scale. By anchoring strategies in these difficult-to-replicate advantages, organizations create sustainable differentiation rather than temporary gains.

Measurable

Measurability transforms strategy from abstract direction into actionable guidance. Without clear metrics, it’s impossible to determine whether a strategy is succeeding or needs adjustment. Effective strategies include specific indicators that track progress toward strategic objectives—not just activity metrics, but outcomes that demonstrate real impact. These measurements create accountability and provide feedback loops that allow for course correction. In distributed organizations where teams operate with significant autonomy, shared metrics become a crucial alignment mechanism, ensuring everyone is working toward the same outcomes despite different day-to-day focuses. The coherent actions section of a strategy should include not just what will be done, but how success will be measured, creating a common language for discussing progress and results across the organization.

Vision

Vision describes a distant enough future to provide a clear trajectory for the organization. It should envision a future where at least some of the current limitations that necessitate trade-offs in strategies can be overcome. A compelling vision helps people throughout the organization break free from local optimization traps and align their efforts toward a common destination.

A good vision should be detailed, but in a specific way. These details serve as vivid coloring to make the vision compelling and believable, not to prescribe exact solutions or limit possible approaches. The details help stakeholders visualize the destination without mandating the exact path to get there.

Structure of the Vision Document

A well-crafted vision consists of:

Vision statement: A concise one- or two-sentence statement that summarizes the trajectory. This becomes an anchor point that needs repeating at every planning meeting and strategy review. It doesn’t attempt to incorporate every detail but provides a memorable encapsulation of the destination.

Value proposition: The company exists to bring a product or solution to its customers–it delivers value to them. The vision document should clearly articulate what value users will receive and how this addresses their needs in ways competitors cannot. This section also describes what success looks like for the company and its customers.

Competencies: What specific key competencies must the team or product develop to deliver on the value proposition? This includes technical capabilities, organizational knowledge, and cultural attributes. Will an unconventional company structure be needed? While you can start by identifying competencies, beginning with the value proposition typically leads to more customer-centric and ambitious thinking.

Constraints: What are the significant limiting factors today? What constraints should inform strategies? What new constraints might emerge in the future? Acknowledging these limitations doesn’t weaken the vision but rather grounds it in reality and helps teams anticipate challenges. This section creates healthy tension between ambition and pragmatism. Can you see any upcoming constraints in the future?

References: Your source material in an appendix to the vision document. Include links to research, plans, dashboards, and documents that support and explain the vision. This is invaluable for anyone who needs to dive deeper to fully understand or advocate for the vision. It demonstrates that the vision is built on solid foundations rather than wishful thinking.

Story time: Ideally a one-page summary of the entire vision document presented in an engaging way. This narrative should tell a compelling story that connects emotionally with readers while conveying the essence of the vision. It serves as both an introduction for newcomers and a quick refresher for those already familiar with the vision.

Tips and Tricks

Vision is a key leadership document. It is surprisingly hard to create. The first version(s) will certainly be bad. Don’t underestimate need for peer review and keep iterating. Disagreements are especially valuable–either clarify them (as they came from lack of alignment) or include them into the document and acknowledge them.

Use present tense and write clearly (yup, the same as for the strategies). Too many buzzwords and people will start playing BS bingo instead of getting inspired.

Keep the document refreshed. This is the same as with any other document, which should help people on day-to-day basis. Regular refresh also gives a good reason for remaining people of its existence.

Does it work?

The ultimate signal of success is when people start to reference the vision document in their decision-making. Similarly, it needs more attention, if day-to-day decisions feel to be going orthogonally (or ever against). Or people cannot even remember where the document is.

On the other side, this is a tool as any other. Use it when necessary. If you teams are aligned and humming, don’t waste your time. If they struggle to stay on course, you see conflicts on strategic level between departments or teams, these documents can be very useful. Not to mention, that they will help you to clarify your own thinking .

---

Before you even get there, it would be great to double-check that you even need to grow that big . ↩︎ 1. OK, deep-dive is really approaching being wrong, as that can easily lead to a death-spiral of overload. ↩︎ 1. Checkout and architect WTF is Strategy? by Vince Law for nested model of mission-vision-strategy-roadmap-execution. ↩︎ 1. In the ideal word, one would start with vision. But I found it really hard. Thus, start with writing couple strategies first, and then abstract into vision(s). ↩︎ 1. Rumelt lists characteristics of the bad strategies – fluff, failure to face the challenge, mistaking goals for strategy, bad strategic objectives. ↩︎ 1. Fluff can assume different forms. It can hide in very complex solutions, but the most frequent (and frankly easies to spot) is the one using vague, unspecific phraseology, e.g. “Our platform will be world-class, scalable, and future-proof” (vague superlatives without concrete meaning); “We will embrace a DevOps culture to enhance productivity” (buzzword without explaining the specific practices to be adopted) or “Our architecture will be optimized for maximum efficiency” (lacks specificity about what efficiency means in this context). If you can play BS-bingo with it, it is a fluff. ↩︎ 1. Sometimes even simplistic. ↩︎ 1. It is the hardest part of strategy creation… ↩︎ 1. This becomes even more important in distributed organizations where teams operate with autonomy. This shared understanding of reality enables consistent decision-making across different contexts and domains. ↩︎