Cart
The quietest strategy failures do not look like failure at first. They look like work.
The leadership team has done its homework. The strategy makes sense. People leave the planning meeting knowing where the company wants to go, and everyone gets back to work. Sales pursues opportunities. Marketing studies the market. Engineering solves problems. Operations keeps things running. Finance watches the numbers.
And yet, over time, something starts to feel harder than it should.
Decisions take longer. Priorities compete for attention. The same issues keep coming back to the table. Projects that seemed important at the beginning of the year begin to lose momentum. People are busy—sometimes incredibly busy—but all that activity is not necessarily moving the organization in the same direction.
When this happens, the natural assumption is that something must be wrong with the strategy, the leadership, or the people responsible for carrying it out. Sometimes that is true. But there is another possibility worth considering: the strategy itself may be sound, while the everyday behavior of the organization is quietly working against it.
That gap between strategic intent and repeated behavior is where strategy execution often begins to break down.
A strategy has to change something on Monday morning
Consider some familiar strategic goals: become more customer focused, innovate faster, grow in priority markets, improve collaboration.
Each one sounds reasonable. But what do they mean at 9 a.m. Monday when a manager has two worthwhile projects competing for the same budget? What changes when a customer asks for something outside the normal process? Which opportunity gets funded? Which project gets delayed? What does someone stop doing because the strategy says something else matters more?
Until a strategy begins answering questions like those, it may still be more of an intention than an executable plan.
Dr. Kyle Harkema’s Strategic Orientation Index (SOI) looks at strategy through the behavior of the organization. At a high level, it considers how organizations think, listen, and act: how they approach opportunity and risk, how they understand customers and competitors and share that information, and what they actually do with what they learn.
The idea is not that every organization should think or act the same way. The more useful question is whether the organization’s repeated choices support the strategy it says matters.
Harkema describes a chain that is easy to understand but surprisingly easy to skip: strategy influences priorities, priorities influence decisions, decisions shape behavior, and repeated behavior eventually affects results.
Leadership naturally wants to move from strategy to results. But there is a lot of life happening in the middle.
Why another presentation may not fix the problem
When strategy execution starts slipping, communication is an obvious place to look. Maybe people did not understand the plan. Maybe leadership needs another town hall, email, presentation, or reminder.
Sometimes they do.
But communication cannot solve a problem created by the systems people work inside every day.
Imagine a company that says customer responsiveness is a priority. Sales is rewarded primarily for short-term volume. Product teams rarely interact with customers directly. Operations has strong incentives to minimize variation. Finance requires a high degree of certainty before approving even a small experiment.
None of those practices is necessarily wrong. Each may have developed for a perfectly good reason. But together, they may send employees a much stronger message than the strategy presentation ever could.
People pay attention to what gets funded, measured, rewarded, approved, and repeated.
If leadership says one thing but the daily operating environment encourages another, employees usually learn to work according to the environment in front of them.
That is why organizational alignment is about more than communicating the strategy clearly. It is about making the strategy usable when real people have to make real tradeoffs.
Try the Monday Morning Test
There is a wonderfully simple way to find out whether a strategy has moved beyond the presentation stage.
After the strategy has been communicated, ask people across different departments and organizational levels:
Because of this strategy, what are you personally supposed to do differently?
Then listen.
Do not help them answer. Do not ask them to recite the company tagline. You are listening for whether they can connect the strategy to a changed decision or behavior.
A specific answer might sound like, “We are going to stop taking custom work that pulls engineering away from the market we decided to prioritize.” Or, “We now need customer evidence before funding a new product idea.” Or, “When we see the same service issue repeatedly, we are going to share it across functions instead of solving it inside our own department.”
Answers like “focus more,” “collaborate better,” or “put the customer first” may sound positive, but they also tell you something important. People may understand the strategy conceptually without yet knowing how to use it.
And that is not necessarily an employee problem. It may be a translation problem.
Turning strategic intent into everyday behavior
Leaders do not need to dictate every decision from the top. In fact, if senior leadership must continually step in to resolve ordinary tradeoffs, that may be a clue that the strategy has not yet become a useful decision-making framework.
Instead, leadership can start by asking four practical questions:
- What matters most right now? When two worthy priorities compete, people need to know which one should win.
- What decisions should change? Look for recurring choices the strategy should influence, not simply one-time initiatives.
- What should we stop doing? Strategy requires tradeoffs. If nothing loses time, attention, funding, or permission, the old priorities are probably still in place.
- What will reinforce the new behavior? Goals, KPIs, meeting agendas, resource decisions, and leadership recognition should support the choices the strategy requires.
The point is not to create more rules. It is to make the direction clear enough that good people can make good decisions without constantly asking leadership to referee.
Before blaming execution, look at the environment
Accountability matters. So does communication. But before concluding that people simply are not executing the plan, it is worth asking whether the organization has made the desired behavior practical, visible, and repeatable.
If capable people repeatedly make choices that pull away from the strategy, perhaps they are not resisting it. They may be responding rationally to different incentives, different information, or different ideas about what matters most.
That changes the leadership question.
Instead of asking, “Why won’t people execute the strategy?” ask, “What about the way we work makes the old behavior more logical than the new one?”
Sometimes strategic clarity begins there—not with another planning session, but with an honest look at what actually happens when everyone comes back to work on Monday morning.
This article is part one of a KMC Controls series inspired by Dr. Kyle Harkema’s Building Geniuses conversation on strategic clarity and the Strategic Orientation Index.