Yes, flexibly applying situational tactics to follow the principle and spirit of the strategy rather than the letter of the rulebook, is what leaders generally

Yes, flexibly applying situational tactics to follow the principle and spirit of the strategy rather than the letter of the rulebook, is what leaders generally want their people to do. They communicate intent and let good judgement do the rest. The way I have always thought of strategy, though, is that it should be directional. Say what input variables you think we should increase or decrease, in order to get closer to the optimum, relative to where we are currently. Taking your example of cost vs. quality. Obviously we want to find an optimum. If a manager can state which direction we need to move in and why, to make progress toward the optimum, I will take their strategy seriously. But if they just tell their people to "optimize," I dismiss them as having no strategy. A manager who's responsible for formulating and communicating a strategy, has to at least have an opinion about which side of the curve we're currently on. Early in my career I was an analyst at an ocean shipping company--lower rates meant fuller ships, higher rates meant better unit margin but lower utilization. Corporate's strategic message? "Fill up the ships with high-paying cargo." It became a joke among the employees.