The Slow Death of Strategy
Why most executive teams are missing the biggest revolution since electricity
I recently sat down with Oscar Stege Unger, who brings a fascinating dual perspective: he runs the consultancy Canucci while also being deeply embedded in the Wallenberg sphere as an advisor to the family.
Our conversation spanned everything from macro trends between Europe, the US, and China down to the nitty-gritty of how leadership teams should operate in this new world. What emerged was both thrilling and terrifying.
The uncomfortable truth about AI readiness
Let's be real – most senior leaders in Sweden are utterly unprepared for what's coming.
I've spent countless hours with C-suite executives who can rattle off AI buzzwords but haven't had their personal "aha moment" with the technology. And that's the first roadblock: you simply cannot have intelligent strategic discussions about AI if you haven't personally experienced its capabilities.
This isn't about being tech-savvy. It's about sitting down, feeling a bit stupid, and experimenting yourself. The barrier isn't technical knowledge – it's experiential knowledge.
As Oscar put it: "If a board doesn't understand what will create value in this company in ten years, will they approve investment proposals from the CEO in areas they don't understand, or will they just put question marks?"
That's the million-dollar question (literally).
The complacency trap we're all falling into
Sweden has a self-image of being technologically advanced. We pat ourselves on the back about our digital infrastructure and tech-positive culture. But this self-perception is becoming dangerous.
Oscar cited AI readiness rankings where Sweden has fallen from the top 3-4 positions to somewhere around 18-25 globally. We're experiencing the Boiling Frog Syndrome – the water is heating up, but we're not jumping out.
Meanwhile, the investment disparities are staggering. The recent Stargate initiative in the US represents roughly $500 billion in AI investment. And Sweden's contribution? Oscar put it bluntly: "It's not even a blip on the scale."
This isn't just about falling behind technologically. It's about power. As Oscar observed about Trump's presidential inauguration: "Who was sitting in the front row? We saw Elon Musk, who invested around $180 million in Trump's campaign and has seen tens of billions in value growth. We saw Sam Altman and major AI infrastructure investments announced in Texas."
The concentration of wealth and power around those who understand and lead tech development is happening at breathtaking speed. And we're largely spectators.
The gap between leadership and reality
Here's what's fascinating about the current moment: the gap between how organizations actually function and how they could function with AI is widening daily.
Oscar's company Canucci was born from a simple but profound insight: "What if you could have a dialogue or essentially listen to or talk with everyone in your organization all the time?"
Traditional organizations weren't designed for this level of communication. They evolved from centuries of hierarchical structures where broad, continuous communication was impossible. But AI changes that fundamental constraint.
Most strategy platforms try to convert unstructured data into structured data – distilling broad PowerPoints and competitor analyses into key goals and initiatives. But this translation always requires a human middleman, and leaders rarely have (or take) enough time to do it properly.
Meanwhile, vast amounts of unstructured information – what happens in management meetings, team discussions, customer interactions – remain untapped. This is where AI can transform not just the tools we use, but how organizations function at their core.
The bottom-up vs. top-down strategy dilemma
When Oscar described Canucci's approach of involving everyone in strategy formation through AI-facilitated conversations, I pushed back a bit. My experience with bottom-up strategic approaches is that they often become scattered. Few roles below the executive level can see the whole picture or propose initiatives requiring major investments.
His response was perfect: "That's where leadership comes in."
He used the analogy of parenting: if your daughter wants ice cream for breakfast, understanding her desire doesn't mean you'll fulfill it. You might say, "I understand, I love ice cream too, but we need to prioritize breakfast now."
The power is in the dialogue. When leaders collect input from throughout the organization, they can make better-informed decisions while still exercising judgment: "We hear you. We understand this feels important to you. We think it's important too, but we're going to prioritize this other thing for these reasons."
This builds trust capital. People may not always get what they want, but they feel heard and understand the reasoning behind decisions.
Wait, that can't be right... but actually, maybe it is? Maybe strategy execution isn't fundamentally about cascading documents down the hierarchy. Maybe it's about creating ongoing conversations that let people translate and internalize the strategy into their own contexts.
The new leadership qualities that matter
We spent a good chunk of time discussing what qualities will define successful leaders in the coming AI era. If Oscar were writing a job description for a CEO position over the next three years, what would be different from 18 months ago?
His answer was immediate: "Openness."
"If two years from now you're not curious and open – if you're not on a journey yourself with constant curiosity – then you're going to have real problems," he explained.
The shift is from "lead by example, I'm the male leader who knows everything and has all the answers" to "I know extremely little, but I can recruit people, give them the right conditions, maintain an open dialogue, and let the team discover the future."
This connects to a fascinating point about elite recruitment. Oscar noted that when hiring for Canucci, which combines strategy consulting with AI technology, they need incredibly smart people. The complexity of understanding both technology (logic, mathematics, models, software) and human aspects (behavior, leadership, future trends) requires exceptional conceptual thinking.
This talent market is brutally competitive. As I noted, it will soon be almost impossible to recruit the smartest people if you don't have a clear AI agenda as a company. The most capable people are looking for environments where they can use these new tools and skills.
The addiction economy and what we're racing toward
One of the darker threads in our conversation was about what Oscar called the "dopamine economy" or "addiction economy."
He cited a statistic that about 27% of 15-18 year olds in the US would be clinically classified as having screen dependencies comparable to heroin or alcohol addiction. This is driving growth in sectors related to mental health issues, pharmaceutical interventions, and other industries that address the fallout.
There's a profound irony here. We discussed how technology can make organizations more human by enabling real conversations at scale, while simultaneously making our personal lives less human through addiction and isolation.
This led to a fascinating reflection on what's fast and what's slow – and what should be fast or slow in our lives and organizations.
As Oscar put it: "Speed is the new IP." That's true. But some things shouldn't be fast. Friendship doesn't work in a fast logic. Education, culture, democracy – should these change quickly? Probably not.
The lingering question
The question I can't stop thinking about is deceptively simple: What discussions should leadership teams be having right now?
Oscar suggested three crucial questions every leadership team should address:
What kind of work environment, leadership approach, and vision will attract the absolute best people? How can we move beyond our current approach to build a brand and culture where the best talent wants to work?
How can we build a company that constantly evolves its products in real-time dialogue with customers and employees? How do we move beyond the model of "build something, ship it to customers, they have it for four years, then we release a new version"?
If we were to write a CEO job description for the next three years – what skills, mindsets and behaviors would it require? What gaps do I have? Can I close them? Do I have the energy for it? What support do I need from my board to succeed?
These aren't questions with easy answers. But the companies asking them now – and acting on the answers – will be the ones still standing in ten years.
As for me, I'm still processing what it means to lead in this new world. The conversation with Oscar left me simultaneously overwhelmed and energized. The pace of change is dizzying, and opportunities far outstrip the time we have to pursue them.
It's a frustrating but exhilarating time to be building a company. And maybe that's exactly as it should be.
If you found this conversation valuable for understanding AI's impact on Swedish leadership, please share it with other leaders in your network.
