In plain English
A good plan that nobody follows is worth nothing. Execution is turning a strategy into who does what, measured how, by when.
The advanced view
Execution failures are structural more often than motivational: misaligned incentives, unclear decision rights, capability gaps, and metrics that measure activity rather than outcomes. Change models (Kotter, McKinsey 7S) exist to force explicit attention on the soft elements that quietly veto plans.
A strategy without execution is a presentation. The Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton) translates strategy into four measurement perspectives — financial, customer, internal process, learning and growth — so that leading indicators are tracked alongside lagging financial results. Strategy maps make the causal chain explicit: capability investments drive process quality, which drives customer outcomes, which drive financial results.
Organisational design follows strategy: functional structures favour efficiency, divisional structures favour responsiveness, matrix structures trade clarity for coordination. Game theory formalises competitive interaction. A Nash equilibrium is a set of strategies where no player gains by deviating unilaterally; the prisoner's dilemma explains why price wars break out even when everyone would prefer higher prices. Repeated games allow cooperation through reputation and tit-for-tat, and credible commitments change the game itself.
Frameworks
Balanced Scorecard
Financial, customer, process, learning. Ties measurement to the strategy rather than to accounting alone.
Strategy map
Causal chain from capabilities through processes and customers to financial outcomes.
Nash equilibrium
No player improves by changing strategy alone. The baseline for predicting competitor response.
Credible commitment
Investments that only pay off if you follow through — they change rivals' best responses.
Why it works
Aligned incentives work because people optimise what is measured and rewarded. If the strategy says premium positioning while sales bonuses pay on volume, volume wins — not through resistance but through rational local behaviour. Naming the incentive conflict is usually the highest-value observation in an execution answer.
Common pitfalls
- ×Recommending 'better communication' — say which decision right moves to whom.
- ×Proposing KPIs that nobody owns, or that measure inputs only.
- ×Ignoring the transition cost: the dip in performance during a reorganisation.
How it is used — size the execution risk
Step 1 of 4
- 1Plan promises 60m of savings over 3 years from a footprint consolidation.
Deeper
Deeper: why good strategies fail in implementation
Strategies fail on three predictable mechanisms: incentives that reward the old behaviour, an operating model that cannot deliver the new one, and a cadence that lets the initiative slip below urgent daily work. Any recommendation you give in a case should name the owner, the metric and the first 90 days.
Change arithmetic helps: if a programme claims 100 of savings, ask how many decisions must go right, and multiply the probabilities. Ten independent steps at 90% each deliver 35%. That is why phased delivery with early proof points beats a big-bang plan.
Must know cold
- ✓Every recommendation needs an owner, a metric, a timeline and a risk.
- ✓Quick wins fund credibility for the slow structural changes.
- ✓Measure leading indicators, not just the lagging P&L.
- ✓Incentives beat intentions — check what the bonus actually pays for.
Exercises
Try each one on paper before revealing the worked solution.
Exercise 1
A cost programme targets 120 of savings across six workstreams, each 80% likely to deliver in full. What should you tell the client to plan for?
Exercise 2
Sales are told to grow revenue while the strategy is to improve mix. What happens, and what do you change?