These challenges often arise when I'm asked to implement a strategy that’s already been decided elsewhere. The core issue? Lack of inclusion.
When I’m part of shaping the strategy, I feel seen. I get to voice my perspective. I notice that others think differently and that’s a strength, not a threat.
Your conclusion (“strategy fails due to human patterns and fears”) almost sounds like a constitutional truth imposed on the organization from above.
But if human patterns and fears are the main reason why strategy fails – then who are we designing the strategy for?
That question, to me, points to something deeper.
Maybe it’s a very European, very participatory lens but I believe: Strategy must be made with people, not just for oranizations.
Thank you for sharing your perspective Anita. I think a strategy has to be inclusive only then you have the buy in necessary for execution. What I meant more by this post was there are several other human factors that impede the strategy process. The principal agent problem, the resistance to change (as general human or animal response) and then the similarity amongst the kind of people we hire and train leading to similar ideas and suggestions. These are just things which exist and good strategy is possible inspite (or is it despite) this.
I love that you have called it out. I read your post as a reco from another Substack strategy, and it did not disappoint. Thank you. I am pretty much a practitioner above it all. These days, I am also an AI practitioner, and I am working diligently to bring these two worlds together, not without helping free talent for innovation in solutions. With that hat on, I'd like to share some immediate thoughts that came to mind: What I keep seeing is strategy collapsing under the weight of its structure. It’s not the frameworks, or even the choices — it’s the wiring underneath.
The principal–agent dynamic isn’t just about incentives. It’s how decisions travel through the system. When the structure rewards self-preservation, even the smartest strategy bends.
Same with change. It’s rare that managers are scared of risk. It’s that the organisation makes risk feel like ripping out its spine. You can’t solve that with a PowerPoint slide.
And the sameness piece… that’s a loop problem. If the system keeps producing the same inputs, you’ll keep getting the same answers dressed in new clothes.
For me, the hard part of strategy isn’t picking the direction. It’s making sure the organisation can carry it without breaking.
It's human nature to resist change, even positive change. In my role now where I am pushing for strategic change, the vast majority of my time is on the change managmeent aspect and moving hearts and minds, not coming up with the strategy itself. Developing the strategy is the easy part.
To be honest, when I read the title, I expected something about unpredictable markets and calculating the risk of strategic options. But I think your points are spot on - human nature is the biggest challenge we need to work with!
Omission Bias plays hard here in your second point. This is where we tend to judge negative outcomes from actions more harshly than those from inactions - even if the outcomes are the same.
So that layers on the risk to making change. Not only do we fear it, we are judged more harshly for it. 😮💨
This is great. One thing I’ve seen make a huge difference is getting crystal clear on the Why and the What—especially the outcomes we’re aiming for and how we’ll measure success. Then pushing the How as deep into the org as possible.
When the strategy is anchored in a shared purpose and measurable goals, people stop waiting for permission and start solving real problems. And that helps reduce fear. I've also found it surfaces better solutions because the folks closer to the work usually have sharper instincts about what’ll actually work.
The key is aligning incentives to those broader outcomes, not just activities. When people are clear on what matters and trusted to figure out how to get there, good things happen.
Curious who else has seen this kind of clarity change the game?
I think aligning incentives is the most difficult part. Both for creating and executing strategy. This is where things usually go wrong. If you are awarding incentives on functional KPIs and missing overall objectives then you are awarding behaviour in which departments stick to managing themselves rather than optimising for overall return.
Lovely summary of persistent issues. I would add that in a lot of industries the people just revolve around competing companies, creating a kind of category group-think, or default benchmarking around the last, de-risked idea.
Well said Ian. I think benchmarking does kill the very elements that make a company distinct. It is usually a sign of entering maturing or declining life cycles of the company
It is also when the leaders of a company confuse themselves for consumers. Only in rare cases does the C suite ever resemble a cogent customer base. Most of the time they live and have lived lives thoroughly insulated from their customers.
What also comes to mind is the question of strategic continuity. The implementation of new strategy and change can turn into a full rotation of moving back and forwards between the same strategies over time!
High-performing managers will be inclined to move jobs and companies regularly, so many people will possibly not be around to see and understand the longer-term impact and the full picture of this cycle.
That is a very valid point Jens. It is also one of the shortcomings of modern organisational structure wherein a high performer does not get rewarded enough if he/she stays in the same role and that leads to constant change which has negative impact of overall strategic continuity. The consulting firm organisational structure rewards this very thing but it has its own challenges in terms of continuity with the client firm.
These challenges often arise when I'm asked to implement a strategy that’s already been decided elsewhere. The core issue? Lack of inclusion.
When I’m part of shaping the strategy, I feel seen. I get to voice my perspective. I notice that others think differently and that’s a strength, not a threat.
Your conclusion (“strategy fails due to human patterns and fears”) almost sounds like a constitutional truth imposed on the organization from above.
But if human patterns and fears are the main reason why strategy fails – then who are we designing the strategy for?
That question, to me, points to something deeper.
Maybe it’s a very European, very participatory lens but I believe: Strategy must be made with people, not just for oranizations.
Looking forward to your thoughts!
Thank you for sharing your perspective Anita. I think a strategy has to be inclusive only then you have the buy in necessary for execution. What I meant more by this post was there are several other human factors that impede the strategy process. The principal agent problem, the resistance to change (as general human or animal response) and then the similarity amongst the kind of people we hire and train leading to similar ideas and suggestions. These are just things which exist and good strategy is possible inspite (or is it despite) this.
Thank you, makes totally sense. And because these human patterns exist, I believe strategy shouldn’t just work despite them, but with them.
💯
I love that you have called it out. I read your post as a reco from another Substack strategy, and it did not disappoint. Thank you. I am pretty much a practitioner above it all. These days, I am also an AI practitioner, and I am working diligently to bring these two worlds together, not without helping free talent for innovation in solutions. With that hat on, I'd like to share some immediate thoughts that came to mind: What I keep seeing is strategy collapsing under the weight of its structure. It’s not the frameworks, or even the choices — it’s the wiring underneath.
The principal–agent dynamic isn’t just about incentives. It’s how decisions travel through the system. When the structure rewards self-preservation, even the smartest strategy bends.
Same with change. It’s rare that managers are scared of risk. It’s that the organisation makes risk feel like ripping out its spine. You can’t solve that with a PowerPoint slide.
And the sameness piece… that’s a loop problem. If the system keeps producing the same inputs, you’ll keep getting the same answers dressed in new clothes.
For me, the hard part of strategy isn’t picking the direction. It’s making sure the organisation can carry it without breaking.
It's human nature to resist change, even positive change. In my role now where I am pushing for strategic change, the vast majority of my time is on the change managmeent aspect and moving hearts and minds, not coming up with the strategy itself. Developing the strategy is the easy part.
Change indeed is difficult. I think sometimes that itself is a barrier to creating a strategy even before execution.
To be honest, when I read the title, I expected something about unpredictable markets and calculating the risk of strategic options. But I think your points are spot on - human nature is the biggest challenge we need to work with!
Indeed. I wanted to touch upon the human element that stops us from creating good strategies. Glad it resonated with you :)
Even worse is when everyone nods in agreement to the strategy, but then quietly works to undermine it.
💯. And that is very very common
Great post 🤝
Omission Bias plays hard here in your second point. This is where we tend to judge negative outcomes from actions more harshly than those from inactions - even if the outcomes are the same.
So that layers on the risk to making change. Not only do we fear it, we are judged more harshly for it. 😮💨
Agreed. As it did not happen people can always use ifs and buts to justify and get away with it.
This is great. One thing I’ve seen make a huge difference is getting crystal clear on the Why and the What—especially the outcomes we’re aiming for and how we’ll measure success. Then pushing the How as deep into the org as possible.
When the strategy is anchored in a shared purpose and measurable goals, people stop waiting for permission and start solving real problems. And that helps reduce fear. I've also found it surfaces better solutions because the folks closer to the work usually have sharper instincts about what’ll actually work.
The key is aligning incentives to those broader outcomes, not just activities. When people are clear on what matters and trusted to figure out how to get there, good things happen.
Curious who else has seen this kind of clarity change the game?
I think aligning incentives is the most difficult part. Both for creating and executing strategy. This is where things usually go wrong. If you are awarding incentives on functional KPIs and missing overall objectives then you are awarding behaviour in which departments stick to managing themselves rather than optimising for overall return.
Agree that it's difficult. I'm a fan of cascading metrics and objectives in order to ensure they all ladder back up to the strategy. I've had a lot of success with KPI Trees (https://www.mistereadvisory.com/musings/planting-seeds-of-success-grow-your-business-with-the-power-of-kpi-trees) and cascading OKRs (https://www.mistereadvisory.com/musings/from-moonshots-to-milestones-how-okrs-propel-strategy-execution)
Have you used either and seen any success? Or do you have other methods you've seen work well?
Lovely summary of persistent issues. I would add that in a lot of industries the people just revolve around competing companies, creating a kind of category group-think, or default benchmarking around the last, de-risked idea.
Well said Ian. I think benchmarking does kill the very elements that make a company distinct. It is usually a sign of entering maturing or declining life cycles of the company
It is also when the leaders of a company confuse themselves for consumers. Only in rare cases does the C suite ever resemble a cogent customer base. Most of the time they live and have lived lives thoroughly insulated from their customers.
That is a sharp observation Ian. I wrote a piece about this earlier called the Missing C in Strategy.
What also comes to mind is the question of strategic continuity. The implementation of new strategy and change can turn into a full rotation of moving back and forwards between the same strategies over time!
High-performing managers will be inclined to move jobs and companies regularly, so many people will possibly not be around to see and understand the longer-term impact and the full picture of this cycle.
That is a very valid point Jens. It is also one of the shortcomings of modern organisational structure wherein a high performer does not get rewarded enough if he/she stays in the same role and that leads to constant change which has negative impact of overall strategic continuity. The consulting firm organisational structure rewards this very thing but it has its own challenges in terms of continuity with the client firm.
Strategy is hard but cool.
Indeed. We love strategy.