Blog

Diverse consulting team reviewing financial documents in modern boardroom with city skyline views

Strategy execution doesn’t fail because the capability doesn’t exist.It fails because of how leaders make decisions about it under pressure.The project budget gets stretched across more initiatives than it can carry.&nbsp;And when something has to give, the project isn't stopped, rather the execution capability around it is cut.Delivery orchestration gets pared back. Change enablement is transitioned to the business. Business ownership gets assigned on paper, then that person is pulled straight back into operations.Each decision looks reasonable at the project level.But across the portfolio, the damage adds up.The technical capability gaps get the airtime. The specialist gaps get the budget. But the capabilities that actually determine whether any of it lands?They're often treated as important but never critical.&nbsp;Until execution starts to drift.They’re the execution capabilities every strategic initiative needs, regardless of what it’s delivering.&nbsp;And most organisations have never planned for them at a portfolio level.My research backs this up. Over 70% of senior leaders rated execution capability as critical to achieving their outcomes.One said it plainly: “You can wish and you can dream, but if you do not have the capability to deliver on that ambition, you are just spinning your wheels.”In my experience, there are five execution capabilities that are non-negotiable: delivery orchestration, executive sponsorship, business ownership, change enablement, and domain expertise.These aren't just roles to fill, remember having someone named is not the same as having someone who can deliver it.So, the question becomes how you make sure the capability is genuinely there?Two of these, delivery orchestration and change enablement, can be sourced both internally and externally. There are more flexible options available now than ever before and if you are planning across the portfolio these decisions become far easier to address your resource model.But the other three, executive sponsorship, business ownership, and domain expertise, cannot be outsourced. They must be built and protected internally.If you're finding the same capabilities stretched or absent across your portfolio, that's not a resourcing problem.&nbsp;That's strategy approved without an execution plan that's actually feasible.Here's the question I'll leave you with: In your last portfolio review, did you assess whether each initiative had the execution capability to deliver? Or just whether it had the budget to start?This is part of lever 5 (Execution Feasibility) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model. <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model">See the full framework →</a>Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about">Rebecca Reti</a>, strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.

The Five Execution Capabilities Every Initiative Needs

Diverse team of four logistics professionals standing together in warehouse facility, representing technical, operational, and management roles

Alignment says everyone should think and act the same way. Coherence says something narrower and harder: a small set of norms we cannot afford for variance on, while everything else is free to look completely different.Some consultants will sell you cultural alignment. For execution, what you actually need is coherence. They aren't the same thing.Finance runs on precision and control. Sales runs on speed and relationships. Operations runs on whatever keeps the lights on today. Aligning them would mean flattening what makes each of them good at their job. Nobody actually wants that, and it's not what execution needs anyway.What execution needs is narrower.&nbsp;A commitment made in one part of the business has to count in every part of it.Pace has to hold wherever one team's deadline depends on another.&nbsp;Risk has to travel to whoever needs to hear it, not stay wherever it's comfortable.&nbsp;That's the core, and it's small on purpose.Everything else, how fast a team decides internally, how it prefers to challenge itself - can stay exactly as different as it already is. What can't differ is whether two teams can disagree at a boundary and resolve it themselves, without escalating.&nbsp;That's not fragmentation. That's coherence doing its job properly.Get this wrong, and you won't see it in an engagement score. You'll see it in the handover that stalled, the commitment that quietly stopped counting the moment it crossed a boundary.Most culture work goes wide when it should go narrow. Naming the few norms you can't afford variance on, and leaving everything else alone, is more useful than a values statement everyone can agree with and nobody can act on. That's the work in <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/leadership" href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/leadership" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Leadership</a>.Where would your core fail first? This is part of lever 7 (Culture for Execution) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model. <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model">See the full framework →</a>Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about">Rebecca Reti,</a> strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.The one-pager linked below helps you to see which things fall into which group, and gives you the test to run across your own business. <a data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_strategyexecution-strategyexecutionbydesign-activity-7480023581830172672-rr7T" href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_strategyexecution-strategyexecutionbydesign-activity-7480023581830172672-rr7T">See it on LinkedIn →</a>

Alignment or coherence? They aren't the same thing

Two diverse professionals discussing business strategy at modern meeting table with natural window light and digital displays

You say collaboration. Yet you incentivise the lone wolf... and cross-functional delivery breaks.You say innovation. Yet you punish the failure... and people stop raising risks early.You say accountability. Yet you protect the senior leader who doesn't deliver... and commitment erodes at every level beneath them.You say customer-first. Yet you open every meeting with financials... and decisions start serving the numbers, not the customer.Every one of these is a reinforcement signal. Your people read every one of them. And they follow the signal, not the strategy.This is where execution quietly breaks down. The plan and the governance are rarely the problem. The cultural gap between what you design and what you do is.There are two types of reinforcement. Formal: reward, recognition, performance management, promotion. These are the ones you design.Informal: where leaders spend their time, how they respond to bad news, what gets discussed first on Monday morning, the stories that get retold, and what quietly gets tolerated.The informal signals were never designed. They formed through habit and history. And they are louder than any values statement.In my research, one respondent said it plainly: "Collectivism was encouraged but not rewarded. We could not move the strategy forward in silos."The strategy said one thing. The system said another. People followed the system. Execution stalled.You say collaboration. Yet you incentivise the lone wolf... and cross-functional delivery breaks.You say innovation. Yet you punish the failure... and people stop raising risks early.You say accountability. Yet you protect the senior leader who doesn't deliver... and commitment erodes at every level beneath them.You say customer-first. Yet you open every meeting with financials... and decisions start serving the numbers, not the customer.Every one of these is a reinforcement signal. Your people read every one of them. And they follow the signal, not the strategy.This is where execution quietly breaks down. The plan and the governance are rarely the problem. The cultural gap between what you design and what you do is.There are two types of reinforcement. Formal: reward, recognition, performance management, promotion. These are the ones you design.Informal: where leaders spend their time, how they respond to bad news, what gets discussed first on Monday morning, the stories that get retold, and what quietly gets tolerated.The informal signals were never designed. They formed through habit and history. And they are louder than any values statement.The formal signals are easy to audit. The informal ones are the ones people actually read, and they were never designed. Surfacing what your system is really rewarding, and changing it, is the work in <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/leadership" href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/leadership" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Leadership</a>.In my research, one respondent said it plainly: "Collectivism was encouraged but not rewarded. We could not move the strategy forward in silos."The strategy said one thing. The system said another. People followed the system. Execution stalled.This is part of lever 7 (Culture for Execution) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model. <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model">See the full framework →</a>Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about">Rebecca Reti</a>, strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.The one-pager maps the cultural gap your organisation is living with right now. <a data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_strategyexecution-executionbydesign-cultureforexecution-activity-7477466024804573184-mSJ9" href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_strategyexecution-executionbydesign-cultureforexecution-activity-7477466024804573184-mSJ9">See it on LinkedIn →</a>

Your people follow the signal, not the strategy

Diverse group of language students engaged in animated conversation practice around a communal table in a modern café

You know the meeting. Everyone sits around the table. The proposal is presented. The leader asks if there are any concerns.Silence.The plan gets approved. Everyone leaves. And the real conversation starts in the corridor."That's never going to work." "Did anyone else think the timeline was unrealistic?" "I wasn't going to be the one to say it."In Anglo cultures, this pattern is particularly evident. Societal culture plays a bigger role in execution than most organisations realise. This pattern around confrontation runs through Australia, New Zealand and the UK societies, to varying degrees.Broadly, we value directness in theory, but default to politeness in practice. Challenge gets interpreted as confrontation. Disagreement gets confused with disrespect. And flawed plans get approved because nobody is willing to be the person who pushes back.My research highlighted that, 73% of senior leaders believed avoidance behaviours were having a high to extremely high impact on execution in their businesses. Not because people lacked opinions. Because the culture had taught them it was safer to stay quiet.Most organisations sit in one of two places. Either people feel safe but nothing gets challenged. Meetings end with false agreement. Plans sail through unchecked. Or people do challenge, but it depends on personality and power. The loudest voice wins. Others learn to stay silent.Neither delivers execution.The zone that does is where both safety and challenge are present. Not safety first, then challenge later. Both designed together. Where challenge is expected, not tolerated. Where it is built into how decisions are made, not left to individual courage.Challenge doesn't become normal because someone brave starts doing it. It becomes normal when it's designed into how decisions get made. That's the work in <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/leadership" href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/leadership">Leadership</a>: building an executive team where disagreement is expected rather than survived.One organisation in my research built a simple mechanism: a shared phrase that gave people a way in. "I want to challenge you constructively." It sounds small. But it gave people language to cross the gap between silence and confrontation without it becoming personal.That is the difference between challenge as a culture and challenge as an act of bravery. When challenge depends on courage, it is a lottery. When it is designed into the system, it becomes the norm.This is part of lever 7 (Culture for Execution) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model. <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model">See the full framework →</a>Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about">Rebecca Reti</a>, strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.There's a one-pager mapping what challenge looks like when it's left to chance versus designed for execution, with five practical mechanisms for building it in. <a data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_strategyexecution-executionbydesign-cultureforexecution-share-7474621944051433472-NumY" href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_strategyexecution-executionbydesign-cultureforexecution-share-7474621944051433472-NumY">See it on LinkedIn →</a>

Why nobody challenges the plan until it's too late

Diverse business professionals networking in modern conference room with natural light and collaborative discussion

Think about the last crisis your organisation went through. A major incident. An urgent deadline. A moment when everything was at stake.What happened?Hierarchy flattened. Decisions were made in minutes, not weeks. People worked across functions without waiting for a governance forum. Information went straight to the people who needed it. Nobody waited for certainty. Everyone moved.Then the crisis passed, and it all came back. The slow decisions. The escalations. The waiting for sign-off. Same people the whole time.What you saw in the crisis was your organisation with its norms suspended. What you live with the rest of the year is the same organisation with its norms back in charge.Every organisation runs on rules about how execution happens. Some are written down. The approval thresholds. The governance gates. Who signs off on what.&nbsp;Most are not.&nbsp;How fast decisions really get made. How bad news travels. Whether the hard thing gets said in the room, or in the corridor afterwards.The written ones are easy to find and easy to change. The unwritten ones decide whether anything moves. Because execution is not the plan on the page.It is the everyday decisions people make about what is safe to do here. Change the strategy all you like. Nothing shifts until the unwritten rules do.If you have been following this series, you will have seen this pattern across every lever. Governance that escalates by default. Ownership that lives on paper. Performance still rewarding what the last strategy needed. Different problems on the surface. The same unwritten rules underneath.When I was researching strategy execution in large organisations, 96% of the senior leaders I spoke to told me their reliance on rules, process and standardisation had a moderate to extremely high impact on how they execute.Those rules were meant to reduce uncertainty. But the rule was never the problem. The habit that grew around it was.One leader described it like this: "It constipates decision-making. Everything has to go up the chain. Everything is an escalation, no one can make a decision. That means forward momentum is concentrated in the hand of that authority."Some of that is written down. But escalating the decisions already yours to make is written nowhere. People do it because no one wants to be the one who acted alone.That is what makes norms so hard to shift.&nbsp;The written rule you can see, so it gets fixed. The norm you cannot, so it survives the fix. Until someone names it.The written rules are a design decision. So are the unwritten ones, just made by accident and never revisited. Naming how work actually moves, who really decides, and what people believe they're allowed to do is part of what <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/operating-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/operating-model">Operating Model</a> sets out to change.This is part of lever 7 (Culture for Execution) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model. <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model">See the full framework →</a>Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about">Rebecca Reti</a>, strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.There's a one-pager on LinkedIn, naming seven execution norms shaping every outcome in your organisation, whether you designed them or not. <a data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_strategyexecution-executionbydesign-cultureforexecution-activity-7472406981874470912-KPfG" href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_strategyexecution-executionbydesign-cultureforexecution-activity-7472406981874470912-KPfG" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">See it on LinkedIn →﻿</a>

The unwritten rules that decide how work gets done

Diverse group of professionals standing together in modern open office during culture-building workshop

Culture eats strategy for breakfast. It is one of the most quoted lines in business, and it has quietly done a lot of harm.It tells leaders that culture always wins. So culture becomes a fixed, almost sacred thing. Who we are. What we value. The words you see on the wall in reception.Here is a different idea. Culture is not who you are. It is what your strategy needs you to be, say and do.And the cost of getting it wrong is not abstract.I have watched good strategies, properly funded and well structured, stall completely. Not because the plan was wrong, but because the organisation and’s its people were never shaped to deliver it. The work slowed in the corridors. Decisions crept back up the chain. The hard things went unsaid and nobody could quite point to why.The pushback is always the same: you cannot design culture, it emerges. That is half right. Culture does emerge, but emerging is not the same as accidental. You do not control a culture, you design the conditions it forms around.The part most change efforts miss, is that a culture you are trying to shift is not dysfunction. It is adaptation. It formed because at some point it kept people safe, or rewarded, or out of trouble, and they hold onto it because it worked for them.That is why it fights back. You are asking people to give up something that has protected or promoted them, and they will not do that until the new way feels safer and more rewarding than the old one.This is why culture belongs at the centre of execution, not at the edge of it. The plan is rarely what fails. The conditions to deliver it are.None of the building blocks are mine. Edgar Schein showed that the real culture sits below the surface, in the assumptions nobody says out loud. The Emotional Culture Deck makes the case that what people feel drives what they do. And Gustavo Razzetti's Culture Design Canvas maps the gap between the culture you have and the one you need. What I have done in my work, is aim it squarely at execution, and treat culture as one lever in delivering a strategy, not a discipline that stands on its own.And it is eighteen to twenty-four months of work, not a quarter. Anyone who tells you culture changes faster than that is selling something.Most organisations can describe the culture they want. Few have designed the culture their strategy needs.Culture doesn't shift because it's declared. It shifts when the conditions around it change, and those conditions are mostly set by what leaders do when it's inconvenient. That's the work in <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/leadership" href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/leadership">Leadership</a>.This is part of lever 7 (Culture for Execution) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model. <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model">See the full framework →</a>Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Rebecca Reti,</a> strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.The method is in the one-pager. It starts with the strategy and what it needs people to feel, works through the behaviours and the assumptions underneath, names the gap, then embeds it. It's a loop, not a project.<a data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_strategyexecution-executionbydesign-cultureforexecution-activity-7470218175851175937-nIZw" href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_strategyexecution-executionbydesign-cultureforexecution-activity-7470218175851175937-nIZw"> See it on LinkedIn →</a>

Can you design culture, or does it only emerge?

Rebecca Reti Consulting