Why the Strategy to Execution Gap Needs Fewer Frameworks and More Grit

Subscribe to Newsletter

Transformation people talk about “bridging the gap” between strategy and execution like it’s a clean handover. It’s not. It’s a stack of abstractions, filtered through meetings, emails, slide decks and a bunch of vague “alignment” sessions. By the time strategy reaches delivery, the real context is buried and the work gets done by whoever’s still standing.

Plans don’t deliver. People do. And most of the time, it’s not the smoothest talkers or the ones with pristine Gantt charts who drive things forward - it’s the ones who dig in, get blocked, find a way round and keep going.

Ask anyone who's worked on the ground: clean solutions are rare. Execution lives in the grey. There are always too many variables, half-settled decisions, awkward dependencies and tools that almost do what you need. You’re not working with perfect inputs - you’re dealing with trade-offs based on what’s there.

People overestimate the value of strategy and underestimate what it takes to drag a half-baked plan over the finish line. Most real-world outcomes don’t come from pristine planning. They come from sharp thinking paired with brute force - people who don’t take no for an answer and don’t wait for perfect information.

That’s the real gap. Not a lack of frameworks. A lack of people willing to live in the chaos long enough to deliver something real.

The illusion of clarity

On paper, strategy looks clean.

Executive scorecards reduce whole programmes to three bullets:

Where are we now?

What support is needed?

What are the risks?

That clarity is useful, but also misleading at the deeper levels of execution.

Because by the time strategy moves from slide deck to actual delivery, the shape has already changed.

Strategy doesn’t cascade. It fragments!

We’ve seen the checklists:
- “10 ways to close the strategy–execution gap.”
- Scorecards. Ownership models. Incentives.

All sound great in theory, but here’s what actually happens:

- Plans hit friction.

- Tasks multiply.

- New problems emerge.

- No one’s quite sure what the original strategy was meant to achieve.

And the people who get it done? They’re not quoting dashboards.
They’re chasing down access rights and developing on vague specs at 10pm.

Execution isn’t missing a playbook.
It’s missing people willing to live in the mess - and still deliver.

Strategy gets cleaned as it filters up.
Execution gets elaborated out as it filters down.
And somewhere in that sprawl is the intentional work.

What keeps fragmented strategy coherent?

When strategy spreads across teams and workstreams, you need connective tissue to keep it aligned.

Here are 5 core dependencies:

1. Clear strategic intent

What it is: Everyone knows why the work matters — not just the goals, but the reason behind them.
Without it: Teams optimise for the wrong things or make decisions in
isolation.
Depends on:

Leadership alignment
Sharp, simple strategy comms (not long decks)

2. Translators across layers

What it is: People who speak both strategy and delivery and bridge the two.
Without them: Gaps widen, assumptions grow, and local work disconnects
from overall goals.
Depends on:

Strong programme leads, product ops, or staff-level ICs
Trust-based networks, not just reporting lines

3. Lightweight governance with teeth

What it is: Fast, regular check-ins that surface misalignment and fix it early.
Without it: Drift goes unnoticed until it’s too late.
Depends on:

Fortnightly or monthly review cycles
Clear decision rights and escalation paths

4. Shared model of value

What it is: Everyone agrees on what “good” looks like - and how to measure it.
Without it: Delivery happens, but no one knows if it’s working.
Depends on:

Simple outcome-focused scorecards
Real feedback loops tied to actual value (not vanity metrics)

5. Operational slack

What it is: Enough space in the system to adapt, fix and course correct.
Without it: Teams are too stretched to solve anything beyond immediate
tasks.
Depends on:

Realistic capacity planning
The ability to stop and rethink without triggering chaos

When there’s no precedent, execution gets messy

Most real-world outcomes don’t come from pristine planning. They come from high-level intelligence paired with brute force application from people who don’t take no for an answer and don’t wait for perfect information.

Take a case where demand for data was growing faster than the infrastructure could support. The strategy said “scale analytics capability,” but that could’ve meant anything. The team had to run multiple performance tests under different scenarios; tuning pipelines, shifting workloads, trialling data models, until they found the point where infrastructure performance, analysis needs and budget pressure could all coexist.

No playbook covered it. No one approved each iteration. They just kept pushing until something held. That’s what execution actually looks like. Not predefined elegance, but pressure, trade-offs, and people willing to sit in the grey long enough to land something useful.

The core principle

Shared understanding is what holds fragmented strategy together.
Clear and consistent communication is what keeps that understanding alive as teams move, adapt, and deliver.

The moment communication breaks down:
– intent gets lost
– decisions drift
– work detaches from value
– effort multiplies with less impact

Execution doesn't fail because people don't care. It fails when they're no longer working toward the same goal.

Conclusion

The gap between strategy and execution isn’t about missing a killer playbook.

It’s about whether you have the right people working toward the right vision; the ones who can deliver under pressure, in complexity, with half the context and none of the comfort.

Frameworks help. But they don’t deliver. People do.

And the ones who get it done aren’t always the flashiest - they’re the ones who stay in the grey, solve forward, and keep going when the map runs out.