Every strategy eventually arrives at an ordinary Tuesday morning.
The plan was approved in March. The priorities were clear, the slides were good, and the leadership team left the offsite aligned. By June, the production supervisor is still running the plant much as she did in February. Not out of resistance, but because nothing on her schedule, her budget or her performance measures has actually changed.
That is where most strategies fail. Not in the boardroom, but in the space between a decision and the routines that are supposed to carry it out.
The plan is rarely the problem
The execution gap is well documented. Research by Donald Sull, Rebecca Homkes and Charles Sull, published in Harvard Business Review, found that two-thirds to three-quarters of large organizations struggle with execution, and that only half of middle managers can name any of their company's top five priorities. A Project Management Institute study reported that while 88 percent of executives say strategy implementation is important to their organizations, very few organizations (9 percent) rate themselves as excellent at executing strategic initiatives.
Those studies are now several years old. The pattern they describe has not aged.
Where the translation breaks
Ownership is diffuse. "The leadership team" owns the strategy, which in practice means no individual does. Priorities without a named owner become everyone's second job.
Incentives point the other way. A plant asked to support a new high-mix product line is often still judged on throughput and machine utilization. When strategy and the scorecard disagree, the scorecard usually wins.
Information is fragmented. Sales sees the new customer segment, operations sees the schedule, finance sees the margin. Nobody sees all three at once. Notably, the Sull research concluded that the weak point was usually not alignment down the hierarchy but coordination: people in other units can't be counted on.
New work is added; nothing is removed. A strategy that asks for more without releasing capacity is a request for overtime, not a change in direction.
Smaller and industrial firms feel it differently
In a small business, the strategist and the operator are often the same person. The gap is not hierarchical but temporal: the founder decides on Monday and is consumed by customer issues by Wednesday. The strategy fails not because it was misunderstood, but because nobody else was ever given it.
Industrial companies face a physical version of the problem. A strategic shift collides with equipment lead times, qualification requirements, training, maintenance windows and safety procedures. A plan that ignores these constraints is not ambitious. It is incomplete.
A three-part translation test
Before calling a strategy "launched," leaders can ask three questions of each priority.
- 1. Who owns it, and what will they decide?
One named person, not a committee, with clear decision rights and an outcome stated in operating terms: a lead time, a yield, a number of qualified customers, not "strengthen our position."
- 2. What stops so this can start?
Every priority consumes capacity: engineering hours, machine time, management attention, cash. If no existing activity is reduced or deferred, the resources have not really been allocated.
- 3. Where does it appear in the routine?
If a priority never shows up in the weekly production meeting, the monthly review or a measure the front line already recognizes, it does not exist for the people expected to deliver it.
Execution is the test of the strategy
It is convenient to treat execution as the department that receives a strategy. It is more accurate to treat it as the test of whether the strategy was ever real.
A strategy is not finished when it is approved. It is finished when someone on the shop floor would do something differently next Monday because of it, and someone specific is accountable for checking that they did.
Sources & references
- Donald Sull, Rebecca Homkes and Charles Sull, "Why Strategy Execution Unravels—and What to Do About It," Harvard Business Review, March 2015 (Vol. 93, No. 3). ↗
- Project Management Institute, Pulse of the Profession: The High Cost of Low Performance 2014. ↗
- Project Management Institute, "The High Cost of Low Performance" (executive summary, 2014). ↗
This article provides general information and commercial commentary, not legal, investment, regulatory, medical or certification advice. Illustrative examples and calculations are not actual customer engagements or quotations.
Discuss this topic ↗