Most strategies fail because people are boxed in, not because they’re unmotivated

We spend too much time assuming strategy fails because of poor thinking, faulty plans, or lack of buy-in. But more often, strategy fails in execution because, when it meets the real world, the organisation is unable to act.

Not unwilling. Unable.

The real enemy of execution isn't resistance. It's subtle sabotage disguised as regular work.

In 1944, the CIA's predecessor, the OSS, published a field guide to help ordinary citizens sabotage enemy operations from within. The now-declassified Simple Sabotage Field Manual is both darkly comic and brutally insightful.

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.

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.

The traditional approach assumes stability.

Traditional execution models assume stability. They rely on linear processes, predictable cause-and-effect relationships, and the assumption that organisations can control their external environment.

This may have worked at some point, but with increasing uncertainty and unpredictability, traditional approaches to execution don't just fail; they actively increase fragility.

As we close the chapter on 2024, it's essential to acknowledge the turbulence and volatility that defined this year. The relentless pace of change and the unpredictability of events have exposed the inadequacies of traditional approaches to leadership, strategy, and organisational design. For many, this year has been a wake-up call, a clear sign that old models, rooted in assumptions of stability and linearity, no longer suffice.

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.