What If We Trained Strategy Like We Train GAAP?

Why finance leaders need their own frameworks for thinking — and how to start building one

Post-COVID, many companies are running lean — stretched teams, limited resources, and fewer layers between a problem and the person expected to solve it. Meanwhile, the complexity around us continues to grow: inflation, global instability, technology disruption, labor constraints, and shifting capital markets.

In this environment, the CFO is expected to do a lot. 

·      To be both tactical and strategic. 

·      To close the books and shape the narrative. 

·      To manage risk and drive opportunity. 

·      To see around corners — and tighten the forecast at the same time.

The role has evolved — but our training hasn’t.

Most finance leaders are trained in structure: GAAP, audit controls, reporting standards, compliance requirements. We learn how to ground decisions in documentation and verify before we act. We are taught, rightly, that accuracy matters.

But when it comes to strategy — to defining complex problems, surfacing assumptions, guiding capital allocation, and supporting critical decisions — there is no equivalent framework. No shared method. No structured training. And yet this is where modern CFOs are increasingly expected to operate.

We’re asked to bring clarity to ambiguity, but without a language or process for how we do it.

In behavioral economics, this challenge is described as “judgment under uncertainty” — the human tendency to rely on shortcuts when navigating complex or incomplete information. Even experienced leaders default to fast, confident thinking in moments of pressure.

As Daniel Kahneman put it, “What you see is all there is.” We solve the problem that’s visible, not necessarily the one that’s real. And in doing so, we risk applying precision to the wrong problem.

That’s why strategy — like financial reporting — needs structure. Not a rulebook. A framework.

Imagine if we approached strategic thinking with the same discipline we bring to closing the books: with consistency, with intention, with a bias toward clarity. Not to slow the business down — but to “avoid speeding in the wrong direction”.

The good news is: frameworks for thinking strategically do exist. From decision science to scenario planning, from systems thinking to design-based problem solving — there’s a body of knowledge finance leaders can draw from. But that shift has to be intentional.

Strategic thinking isn’t a muscle most CFOs build by default. It has to be studied, practiced, and made part of how we operate — just like any other professional standard.

And as AI accelerates analysis and big data expands what we can see, the window between input and action continues to shrink. We have more information than ever — and less time to interpret it. The risk isn’t lack of data. It’s acting before we understand what matters.

Technology will keep moving fast. Our thinking needs to stay grounded.

Being both strategic and tactical is now part of the job. But while we’ve been rigorously trained in how to get the numbers right, most of us haven’t had the same guidance when it comes to structured thinking around strategy.

As the pace of business accelerates and the complexity increases, it’s worth stepping back to consider:

• - What is your personal approach to strategic thinking? 

• - How do you approach ambiguity when the answer isn’t obvious? 

• - What structure have you built — for yourself or your team — to ensure better thinking before action?

If we expect to make better decisions in uncertain conditions, we need to start putting as much intention into how we think as we do into how we report.