Insights: Strategy
Strategy that works in practice (not just on paper)
Over the years I have come across a lot of strategies that looked great, that made sense, and that went nowhere. Often into a drawer or on a shelf gathering dust. Which tells you how long this has been a challenge – I mean, who prints a strategy anymore, anyway?
A key issue I have seen is this – sometimes a strategy is thought of as a largely rational exercise. The quest for the right answer, as determined by data, logic and decision trees. It's why we want to hire strategy consultants who seem like they’re the smartest people in the room.
At some point though, strategy meets the real world. And too often fails.
Because the real test of a strategy is not whether it reads well. It’s what happens when people are under pressure, making decisions in real time.
The only test that matters
“The only valid test of an idea, concept or theory is what it enables you to do.” (MGTaylor DesignShop axiom).
On paper, most strategies are coherent. They describe priorities, ambitions and direction in a way that makes sense. But a strategy that exists on paper alone is a work of fiction. It only becomes real when it helps people act differently; when it shapes decisions, trade-offs and behaviour in the flow of work.
In practice, decisions don’t happen in controlled environments. They happen:
- Under time pressure
- With incomplete information
- In different contexts
- With competing priorities pulling in different directions
This is where strategy either shows up with its sleeves rolled up and a quiet offer of help... or adds to the noise, shouting lists of priorities from on high.
The limits of control
Most strategies are developed by leadership teams, and communicated outwards from the centre. The expectation is that they will be implemented consistently across the organisation.
The philosophy made sense in simpler times. When outputs were predictable, repeatable and scalable in an industrial context. But the model struggles in complex environments where conditions change, and context matters.
The more complex the system, the more decisions need to be made locally, by people closest to the work.
No central group can see every situation, anticipate every decision, or prescribe every action. Trying to assume control through detailed plans and instructions creates friction, slows things down, and often leads to disengagement.
A different role for strategy – and for leaders
If strategy cannot rely on control, it has to do something else. If we look at strategy as a tool for enabling coherent action across an organisation, its role is not to direct every action; it’s to enable more aligned decisions.
This also reframes the role of leaders – as orchestrators. Assuming we’ve done a good job of hiring great people, we don’t need to direct them, we need to create the conditions for good work to happen. That means connecting different parts of the organisation, setting direction, and defining the boundaries within which people can act.
The core work of the organisation happens through the people delivering services, building products, working with customers, and making decisions every day.
Strategy and leadership need to support them, not sit above them.
Freedom within structure
Overly prescribed strategies limit judgement, reduce ownership, and struggle to adapt when reality changes. Overly loose strategies create ambiguity, inconsistency, and drift. There’s a sweet spot to be found in the middle. One that creates a clear structure, with freedom to act within it.
That means:
- A shared understanding of what we are trying to achieve
- Clear priorities and trade-offs
- Principles that guide decisions
- Defined boundaries within which people can operate
Within that structure, people can use their judgement, respond to context, and adapt as needed. This is where capability grows and where strategy starts to live.
The goal is coherence, not control.
Participation creates ownership
If strategy is going to be used by people across the organisation, it cannot be handed down fully formed. This is the work to be done – helping teams move from abstract strategy to something they can actually use.
Not to reach consensus on every detail, but to build shared understanding and practical relevance. People need to be able to see:
- How it connects to their work
- How it helps them make decisions
- Where they have freedom, and where they don’t
Strategy gains strength through participation, not just communication.
We often say that people will fight for what they had a hand in creating. That’s important – ownership will drive better execution. But this isn’t just a change management exercise in building ownership. Strategies created with the people that will execute them are also likely to be better strategies, because they’ve been informed by practical and relevant experience.
Doing this work well is not easy and it’s where many teams need help – engaging broadly without ending up with an ‘everything strategy’ through seeking consensus.
A different way to think about strategy
If your strategy isn’t being used day-to-day, it’s worth asking:
- Does it help people make decisions?
- Does it give enough clarity to act with confidence?
- Does it allow for judgement within clear boundaries?
- Has it been built to evolve, adapt and to live?
If not, the issue may not be the quality of the thinking, but the way the strategy is designed to work in the real world.
