"argue for clarity about the most important choices"

"For more established companies, the challenge is different. They risk having their choices become stuck in whatever they have been doing all along regardless of how customers, competitors, technology, or regulation evolves. This is both the effect and cause of a kind of corporate myopia wherein opportunities and imperatives to innovate are missed, and a form of corporate drift in which the company’s essential strategy choices passively evolve without forethought and deliberation. The myopia makes a company fall behind in an ever-changing world, and the drift produces a lack of clarity in the organization. Together, they inevitably make execution an exercise of running harder to stay in the same place. But having a combination of stated and working choices solves this problem, because the former forces subconscious strategy to the surface, and the latter shines a light on those issues and opportunities that require strategic innovation.
.
Your leader resists strategy because he fears he’ll lose the flexibility to change his mind, and the company’s direction, if warranted by new developments. Your solution is to argue for clarity about the most important choices that will guide the company’s priorities, lower-level decisions, and actions — and for clarity on the issues and opportunities that he and his team should be working on in order to keep pace with an always-changing world. With this understanding, the company is both anticipating and responding to how its direction should evolve in a deliberate way. That’s how you get the benefits of having both a decisive and flexible strategy without having to utter the word to someone who cannot stomach it."

Trecho retirado de "Strategy Talk: Can Strategy Be Decisive and Flexible?"