EXECUTION IS NOT AN AFTERTHOUGHT: A CEO CONVERSATION ON WHY STRATEGIES STALL

Many organisations approve ambitious strategies, yet delivery weakens within months. Why does this pattern repeat?

Because strategy is often approved faster than the organisation is prepared to carry it. Boards agree on priorities, but the systems underneath remain unchanged. Performance reviews still reward activity, budgets stay anchored to the past, and decision rights remain ambiguous. Under pressure, execution follows structure, not intent.

You argue that execution failure is usually structural rather than behavioural. What does that look like inside organisations?

It shows up when leaders say one thing and reinforce another. Teams are told a priority is critical, yet nothing changes in how work is reviewed, resourced, or governed. People do not resist strategy; they respond rationally to what the organisation rewards and tolerates.

Boards often assume clarity is enough. Is that assumption misplaced?

Clarity is essential, but clarity without reinforcement is informational, not operational. Execution depends on whether priorities trigger decisions, trade-offs, and consequences. If clarity does not change behaviour, it is not yet execution-ready.

You place strong emphasis on leadership signals. Why are they so influential?

Signals tell the organisation what truly matters. They appear in what leaders revisit repeatedly, what they escalate quickly, what they allow to slide, and what they quietly ignore. These signals shape behaviour far more powerfully than strategy documents, especially under pressure.

Many organisations run regular performance reviews. Why do these often fail to improve delivery?

Because reviews frequently catalogue effort instead of forcing decisions. Teams report progress, but nothing is re-prioritised, stopped, or re-owned. When reviews do not trigger consequences, they become rituals rather than control mechanisms.

Accountability remains a sensitive topic. Why is it so difficult to embed?

True accountability introduces discomfort. It requires naming owners, attaching consequences, and revisiting decisions when results drift. Many institutions choose harmony over discipline. The cost of that choice is predictable: execution becomes optional.

Are these execution challenges specific to certain markets or sectors?

No. They appear wherever organisations operate at scale and under complexity. The patterns are global. What differs is how quickly leaders recognise execution as a design issue rather than a motivation issue.

What distinguishes organisations that execute consistently well?

They engineer execution deliberately. Strategy, governance, incentives, and leadership routines reinforce one another. There is little room for interpretation. Execution is not encouraged; it is structurally enforced.

As CEOs plan for the year ahead, what question should they be asking differently?

Akin Monehin: They should ask less about how compelling the strategy sounds and more about what the organisation will make unavoidable. Strategy only matters when the institution beneath it is designed to deliver, even when attention drifts and pressure rises.