“The smart one” is dumb
Strategy can be a wonderful way to make a living, but there's a problem. We perpetuate a myth that in theory feels aspirational, and in practice is a mental barrier. I'm talking about the idea of strategists as "the smart ones".
Sure, that's one way of looking at things. It makes us feel valuable and important. But I'm not convinced it's effective. We like to sell the idea of smartness, but I'm not sure that's what clients or teams want to buy.
When we say we're "the smart ones", we risk making two mistakes:
We focus on a feature (what we do), rather than a benefit (what clients get). The exact thing we say our clients' brands should avoid with customers. The cobbler's children indeed have no shoes.
We make this job feel intimidating and exclusionary. Some people don't like the pressure of being "the smart one", so they give up. And we miss out a bunch of potentially great divergent thinking.
What can we do about it? I asked the Salmon Crew to riff on alternative strategy archetypes. Some fuel for our mental fire. So if you don't think you add value by just "being really smart", here are some other options:
Advocate. You add value by being the voice of customers.
Alchemist. You add value by combining unrelated topics.
Artisan. You add value by combining pride and precision.
Connector. You add value by connecting the right people.
Cultivator. You add value by planting seeds of ideas.
Curator. You add value by noticing ideas others may miss.
Detective. You add value by obsessing over evidence.
Futurist. You add value by anticipating what's next.
Facilitator. You add value by channelling people's energy.
Guardian. You add value by protecting the fundamentals.
Interpreter. You add value by creating shared language.
Lawyer. You add value by stress testing arguments.
Navigator. You add value by giving orientation.
Orchestrator. You add value by creating internal harmony.
Outsider. You add value by questioning established beliefs.
Pathfinder. You add value by turning prompts into a plan.
Provocateur. You add value by forcing important issues.
Scientist. You add value by encouraging experimentation.
Show(wo)man. You add value by making the work compelling.
Simplifier. You add value by reducing things to their core.
There will be other archetypes, or clearer ways of articulating their value. The point is "smartness" is only one version of reality, when there's a whole multiverse out there. Each archetype unlocks a different branch.
You can also adopt different archetypes depending on the job at hand, the client at hand, or the stage of a project. Being adaptable is a virtue in itself. And while strategy is about choices, it should never be about rigidity.
So what's your branch? Do you have more than one? Could we interpret all of these as different versions of "being smart"? I'd argue so, but then again I never liked the idea of pretending to have all the answers.
Especially when, in the age of AI, it's smarter to generate better questions, and hold space for groups of people to start answering them together. Solo smartness will only take you so far. Aim for collective stickiness instead.
