The value isn't in the plan. It's in how you prepare to adapt.

There's a military adage that's made its way into business circles: "No plan survives first contact." Eisenhower sharpened it further: "The plan is nothing; planning is everything."

But most organisations still treat planning as if the goal is to lock everything down. Define every milestone. Predict every variable. Control every outcome.

And then they are surprised when it falls apart.

Too often, purpose is treated as something you declare, design, and disseminate. It's written on the walls, embedded into decks, and broadcast at town halls. But when leaders treat purpose as real simply because it's been said, they mistake narrative for reality, and control for coherence.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: It doesn’t matter what you say your organisation exists to do. It matters what your organisation actually does.

Why buzzwords don't bring clarity — and what strategy actually demands

When marketing captured strategy, we didn't just reframe the message. We reframed the work.

Strategy became something to be cascaded rather than constructed. It became a narrative exercise. A brand asset. A motivational toolkit for internal engagement.

In that shift, we lost something fundamental: the connection between strategic intent and structural capability.

We were sold the lie that strategy starts with "why." The key to coherence was a compelling narrative.

Rethinking aspirations, planning cycles, and the complexity we're actually in.

We must move on from the idea that strategy is a five—or ten–year plan—a fixed vision we march toward. It's comforting fiction: plot the course, cascade the goals, align the incentives. But strategy doesn't live in Gantt charts or glossy roadmaps. It lives in relationships, tensions, and how we continually navigate change.

One phrase in boardrooms and strategy offsites worldwide still dominates: “We need clarity.” Clarity of vision, purpose, and strategy. And yet, in a complex and shifting world, pursuing absolute clarity can be a trap.

What if strategic ambiguity isn’t a weakness to be fixed but a strength to be wielded?

Execution should expand rather than narrow strategic options.

Traditional organisational execution models often prioritise adherence to a predetermined plan over adaptability. While planning is essential, rigid execution frameworks can become a strategic liability in complex, fast changing environments.

Organisations that fixate on minimising deviation from a predefined path inadvertently reduce their capacity to respond effectively to emerging challenges and opportunities.

Through my experiences leading in the British Army and consulting for various organisations, I have quickly understood that effective leadership requires constant adaptation and the ability to navigate conflicting demands.

Unfortunately, modern "thought leadership" often seems too narrow and fails to account for the complex factors that shape our reality.

In the rapidly shifting terrain of organisational management, debates around structure have become increasingly prominent. On one side, there are proponents of trendy frameworks like Holacracy, which advocate for flat, self-organising teams with distributed authority.

On the other hand, traditional hierarchical structures still hold sway, promising clarity and stability in decision-making. Yet, the real challenge facing organisations today isn't about choosing between hierarchy and flat structures.