Why “strategic PM” has become a meaningless label

“Strategic PM” has become one of the most overused labels in product.

It shows up in job descriptions, performance reviews, and promotion conversations. Everyone wants to be seen as strategic, and almost no one wants to be associated with just execution.

The problem is that strategy has slowly lost its definition.

In practice, “strategic” is often used to mean:

• Working on bigger or more visible initiatives

• Being closer to leadership

• Operating further away from delivery details

None of those things are inherently strategic.

Real strategy is uncomfortable. It forces trade-offs, creates constraints, and makes certain options impossible by design. It’s not about abstraction, it’s about commitment.

A product decision isn’t strategic because it’s high-level.

It’s strategic because it meaningfully narrows future choices.

When strategic PM becomes a label rather than a responsibility, a few things happen:

• Execution gets devalued

• Trade-offs remain implicit

• Strategy turns into narrative rather than direction

Ironically, some of the most strategic product work I’ve seen happens deep in the details, where constraints are real and decisions are costly.

Being strategic doesn’t mean avoiding execution.

It means understanding which execution decisions matter most long term.

The shift for me was stopping trying to sound strategic and focusing instead on whether my decisions had durable consequences.

If they didn’t, the label didn’t matter.

Strategy isn’t a title, it’s a commitment to trade-offs.