Many organisations go through the motions of strategic planning only to end up with what one might call a tick-box strategy – a plan that looks good on paper but never truly comes to life. Surveys show that a majority of senior executives are dissatisfied with their company’s strategy process and even board members often don’t trust the results of those strategy exercises. All too often, strategic planning devolves into setting lofty financial targets or filling out templated plans as a formality, without addressing how to actually achieve those goals in practice. The outcome is a “great paper strategy” that remains unfinished in reality, leading to frustration and missed opportunities. To break out of this pattern, boards and executives – in South Africa’s JSE-listed companies and beyond – must move beyond box-ticking and build strategies that are not only well-designed but fully executable, with mechanisms to ensure they are implemented and deliver positive outcomes. This article explores how to craft a truly actionable strategy, the importance of managing and measuring its execution, and where boards should focus their attention (and what to ignore) given today’s business environment.

The Pitfalls of a Tick-Box Approach to Strategy

It is easy for the strategic planning process to become a perfunctory exercise – a routine checklist of analyses, presentations, and approval of a plan that is soon forgotten. In some companies, strategy planning is virtually indistinguishable from budgeting: executives set growth and profit targets and call it “strategy”, without grappling with the real choices and changes needed to win in the market. In one illustrative case, a CEO’s strategy retreat centred entirely on hitting aggressive financial metrics, while critical issues – like shifting technology and a slow-footed engineering culture – went unaddressed. The result was predictable: the company met some short-term profit targets by cutting costs, but it lost market share and fell behind competitors by neglecting long-term innovation. This scenario is common. Research by consultants and academics finds that too much corporate “strategy work” boils down to budget targets or vague mission statements, rather than concrete plans to overcome the organisation’s obstacles. No wonder 70% of executives say they end up disappointed with the outcomes of their strategy process.

A tick-box strategy process typically has several tell-tale flaws. It may be overly formulaic – rigidly following a template or framework without real debate or creativity. McKinsey warns that an excessively formula-driven approach can ignore the messy, iterative nature of real strategy development, covering the bases “in name only” and producing “great paper strategies that remain unfinished in practice.” Another flaw is focusing on the wrong content: for instance, equating strategy with setting high-level goals (e.g. “become a market leader” or hitting a certain revenue), while failing to decide how to get there. Strategy that only outlines broad ambitions – or is merely a list of initiatives with no prioritisation – has “no bite.” It lacks a realistic assessment of obstacles and concrete actions to surmount them. In short, it doesn’t guide what the business must do differently on Monday morning. Finally, a tick-box approach often suffers from poor engagement and buy-in. The plan might be drafted by a small corporate team and approved perfunctorily by the board, but without input from business unit leaders or those on the front line. This creates a yawning gap between the “thinkers” and the “doers” – the people who execute the strategy don’t feel involved and may not understand what the PowerPoint plans mean for their day-to-day priorities. Such a strategy, detached from reality, is exceptionally difficult to execute.

The cost of a tick-box strategy approach is high. The company risks missing emerging threats or opportunities because the strategy exercise glossed over them. Resources may remain spread thin on legacy priorities (“last year plus” budgeting) instead of being boldly reallocated to where they matter most. Employees become cynical, recognising that the annual strategic plan is a bureaucratic ritual rather than a driver of change. Ultimately, performance suffers. As one CEO wryly noted, “We do a great job of strategic planning. The problem is implementation.” In the next sections, we discuss how to turn strategic planning from a box-ticking routine into a genuine catalyst for action and results.

From Paper Plans to Action: Designing an Executable Strategy

Crafting an effective strategy is only half the battle – the strategy must also be executable. An executable strategy is more than a vision statement or a high-level plan; it is a roadmap that the organisation is prepared and willing to carry out. To design such a strategy, leaders should embrace a few key principles (drawn from global best practices in strategic management) that bridge the gap between planning and execution:

• Prioritise the critical opportunities: Rather than spreading efforts and investments evenly across departments or projects in a “fair” but unfocused way, an executable strategy demands ruthless prioritisation. This means identifying the most promising sources of future growth or competitive advantage and concentrating disproportionate resources behind them. As a Bain & Company study notes, winning strategies often “redeploy trapped resources” and overwhelm the opportunities that really matter, instead of trying to do a bit of everything. In practice, this could involve funding a few “big bets” (such as a new product line or a digital transformation initiative) much more heavily, while scaling back or discontinuing lower-value activities. Executable strategy is about making clear choices – deciding what not to do and freeing up capacity to execute the must-win battles.
• Ensure strategy is grounded in reality: A strategy that looks bold but ignores operational realities will falter in execution. To go beyond lofty paper plans, the strategy formulation process should include those who will later execute it and factor in on-the-ground insights. Leading companies “amplify the voices of the front line” during strategy development. They ask for input from managers close to customers and operations, and they pressure-test strategic ideas against practical constraints. This helps to produce a plan that is both ambitious and realistic – one that the organisation has the skills, capacity, and willingness to implement. It also creates buy-in: people are more likely to rally behind the strategy if they had a hand in shaping it. In short, an executable strategy is co-created with the organisation, not imposed from an ivory tower.
• Bridge strategy and budgeting (don’t confuse them): While strategy and financial planning must be linked, they should not be one and the same. A common pitfall is letting the budget process dominate, so that strategic vision is constrained by last year’s numbers (or devolves into a mere extension of them). World-class strategists instead separate the pure strategy debate from the budgeting discussions. First, they focus on “bold ambition” – defining where the company needs to play and how it will win, without immediately getting lost in financial minutiae. Only after setting the strategic direction do they translate it into concrete resource allocations, operational plans and performance targets. Importantly, the budget then becomes an outcome of the strategy, not vice versa. This sequencing ensures that big ideas aren’t stifled too early, while still connecting strategy to reality. As an example, one global company’s leadership spends the first part of the year purely on strategy development – scanning how markets are changing, debating strategic options – and only in the next phase do they develop detailed budgets and operational plans aligned to the strategy (with clear KPIs to measure success). They avoid the trap of letting “debating math” overshadow strategic thinking, yet they ultimately commit to specific investments and targets that make the strategy actionable.
• Commit and align resources to the strategy: An executable strategy must be supported by tangible commitments across the business. This includes allocating budget, talent, and management attention to the strategic priorities. It may require realigning organisational structures or incentives so that everyone’s “to-do list” reflects the new strategy. McKinsey emphasises that a good strategy is not just a document but a set of decisions and actions the company is ready to take. In practice, once the strategic plan is set, leadership needs to formally translate it into an action plan: key strategic initiatives are defined, executive owners are appointed for each, teams are assigned, and timelines and milestones are established. This is where many strategies fail – they never leave the PowerPoint deck. To avoid that, treat strategy execution as a project in itself: “strategic planning processes [should] engage the organization at all levels to both think strategically and translate strategy into action.” That might involve a dedicated strategy execution office or programme management team to drive and monitor key initiatives. The central idea is that strategy only matters if it changes what the organisation does. Thus, every strategic priority should be linked to concrete steps and investments, answering the team’s perennial question: “What are we going to do about it?”
• Keep strategy adaptable and alive: In today’s fast-changing environment, an executable strategy is not a static five-year plan set in stone. Instead, it is treated as a living journey that the leadership continuously adapts as conditions evolve. Leading companies are moving away from the old ritual of an annual strategy retreat producing a fixed plan, toward a more dynamic approach. For example, McKinsey observes that treating strategy as a one-off project can make it rigid and quickly outdated, whereas seeing it as a journey means regularly checking assumptions and refreshing the strategy when needed. One practical mechanism is to maintain a “live” list of strategic issues and a pipeline of strategic initiatives under review. Senior teams might hold quarterly (or even monthly) strategy sessions to revisit the competitive landscape, track progress of initiatives, and decide if the current course is delivering results or if adjustments are required. This agile approach prevents the strategy from becoming an academic exercise. Deloitte’s 2023 Chief Strategy Officer survey likewise found that organisations are shifting to dynamic strategic planning – continuously translating strategy into execution – which “reduces the tendency for strategies to remain academic versus tangible and executable.” In short, an executable strategy is one that the company keeps executing, revising and learning as it goes, rather than a document that gathers dust.

By following these principles, companies can dramatically increase the odds that their strategy will turn into real results. Research indicates that only about one in three companies produces a strategy that is bold, adaptive, and provides concrete guidance to the frontline – but those that do combine big ideas with practical implementation plans outperform their peers. In fact, truly strategic companies often pull off “big moves” – such as radical productivity improvements, or major reallocations of capital – that vault them into the top tier of performance. Those big moves are only possible when strategy is more than words – when it is backed by decisions and actions. The message is clear: moving beyond box-ticking in strategy formulation is not just a matter of better plans, but of building an organisational capability to execute those plans. Next, we look at how to manage and measure strategy execution to ensure that these plans deliver the intended outcomes.

Managing and Measuring Strategy Execution

Even the best strategy will fail if it is poorly executed. As management experts often quip, strategy without execution is hallucination – meaning that lofty goals mean little without concrete follow-through. Boards and executives, therefore, must give as much attention to managing and measuring the execution of strategy as they do to formulating it. This involves establishing the right processes, metrics and governance to turn strategic plans into realised results.

Set clear metrics and track them: Executable strategies come with defined key performance indicators (KPIs) or milestones that signal whether the strategy is on track. For each strategic objective, management should identify how success will be measured – be it market share gains in a target segment, turnaround times improved by a new process, or financial metrics like return on invested capital. These metrics should be integrated into management’s regular performance dashboards and reviewed frequently. As an example, if the strategy is to improve customer experience through digital channels, the board and executives might monitor customer satisfaction scores and online sales growth monthly to gauge progress. By measuring execution, companies can spot early if a strategy is stalling and course-correct. What gets measured gets managed: when people know the metrics that matter, they are more likely to focus their effort on achieving them. Leading organisations even tie strategic KPIs to incentives – for instance, linking executive bonuses or management evaluations to the achievement of strategic initiatives’ targets. This creates accountability and urgency to execute. The board should ensure that management has put in place a robust performance management system for the strategy, including regular reports to the board on progress against strategic goals.

Implement a rhythm of review and course correction: Managing execution is not a one-time checkpoint but a continuous discipline. Boards and top teams should establish a regular cadence for strategic dialogue and oversight. Rather than waiting for next year’s planning cycle, strategy execution should be a standing item – e.g. discussed in monthly executive meetings and at every board meeting in some form. McKinsey suggests that companies adapt their operating model so that top leadership spends as much time on forward-looking strategy as on short-term operations. In practice, this might mean the CEO and division heads meet every few weeks to review strategic initiative status, address roadblocks, and update assumptions. If an initiative is lagging, they ask why and decide what resources or decisions are needed to accelerate it. If external conditions (say, a new competitor or economic shift) threaten the strategy, they debate adjustments. A continuous, issues-based strategic agenda enables timely decisions – research indicates companies are 60% more likely to make timely, high-stakes decisions when they decouple strategic reviews from the rigid annual cycle and address issues as they arise. This agility is especially important in the current turbulent environment, where waiting a year to pivot strategy could be fatal. In short, frequent review forums ensure that execution remains aligned with reality and that the strategy evolves as needed to stay effective.

Integrate strategy execution with financial and operational planning: One reason strategies fail in execution is that they exist in a vacuum, separate from the company’s day-to-day management processes. To avoid this, successful firms “formally integrate the strategic-management process with [their] financial-planning processes”. In other words, they link strategic initiatives to the budgeting process and to operational plans. A simple example is to allocate a specific budget line (and headcount) to each major strategic initiative – effectively funding the strategy. Quarterly business reviews might include not only financial results but also updates on strategic project milestones. By embedding strategy into the fabric of management routines, you create a natural mechanism to monitor execution. If a strategy calls for opening 10 new stores in key locations, the real estate and finance teams should incorporate that into their plans and report progress on store openings and early performance. This ensures that strategy execution isn’t an afterthought, but rather baked into the company’s targets and processes. One global bank that revamped its approach after the financial crisis did exactly this: after redefining its growth strategy, it halted the usual long-range plan and integrated strategy discussions into biweekly management meetings, aligning strategic decisions (like where to reallocate capital) with its financial plans. The result was a more responsive strategy execution that became part of “how we run the business” instead of a separate initiative.

Foster a culture of execution and accountability: Beyond processes and metrics, the human element is crucial. Strategy execution often falters due to organisational inertia or lack of ownership. Boards and senior leaders need to champion a culture where execution is valued – where managers are expected to deliver on strategic objectives, not just talk about them. This can involve training and equipping teams to execute (for instance, project management capabilities for complex initiatives), as well as breaking silos that hinder collaboration. Some companies create cross-functional teams for each strategic initiative, led by an executive who is accountable for its success. Regular execution reviews (sometimes called “strategy review meetings” or using frameworks like OKRs – Objectives and Key Results) can instill discipline, as managers know they must report on progress and problems. If execution issues arise – say a project is behind – the focus should be on problem-solving: what support or change is needed to get back on track? In essence, managing execution is about actively driving change through the organisation. It’s notable that in leading firms, the Chief Strategy Officer (CSO) or equivalent role is increasingly tasked not just with strategy formulation but also with seeing through execution in partnership with the COO. This reflects a recognition that strategy and execution cannot be divorced. The board, too, has a role: it should regularly ask management not just “What is the strategy?” but “How are we doing against our strategic goals? Where are we succeeding or struggling, and why?” By keeping execution on the radar, boards signal its importance and help ensure the strategy yields the positive outcomes envisioned.

Finally, measuring execution success should feed back into learning. If certain strategic bets are not paying off, it may be time to revise the strategy. Conversely, if goals are met, it’s an opportunity to set new ambitions. Effective strategy execution management thus creates a virtuous cycle: plan – act – measure – learn – adjust. With this cycle in place, companies can avoid the fate of strategies that “fail to survive the first punch” of reality. Instead, they build a resilient strategic approach that is continuously executed, evaluated, and refined for sustained success.

Board Priorities in a Turbulent Environment: What to Focus on and What to Ignore

In the current business environment – marked by rapid technological change, economic uncertainty, and evolving stakeholder expectations – corporate boards need to be especially vigilant in steering strategy beyond paper compliance and towards real performance. Board members of JSE-listed companies in South Africa, like their global peers, face the challenge of guiding their organisations through complexity and change. To do so, boards should focus on what truly matters for long-term value and avoid being distracted by issues that do not add strategic value. Here are key areas of focus and things to deemphasise:

Boards should prioritise:

• Overseeing strategy execution and outcomes: The board’s strategic oversight shouldn’t stop at approving a strategy; it must extend to ensuring that the strategy is executed and delivers results. Especially in uncertain times, boards should regularly engage with management on strategic progress and make sure the company remains on course or adapts appropriately. This means asking tough questions about whether initiatives are on track and pressing for honest assessments of what’s working or not. A proactive board will help management to “get ahead of risks and take advantage of opportunities through a renewed focus on strategy”, effectively making 2024 and beyond the “Year of the Strategic Board.” That involves aligning with management on the strategic direction and then monitoring execution through key performance indicators and updates. In practice, the board might schedule deep-dives on strategic initiatives at each meeting, ensuring that execution hurdles are discussed (and where appropriate, the board helps remove obstacles or provides resources). This focus reinforces throughout the organisation that strategy execution is a top priority from the very top down.
• Long-term resilience and risk management: Given today’s volatility – from economic swings and supply chain disruptions to geopolitical events – boards should concentrate on the company’s resilience and ability to weather crises. This includes ensuring that robust risk management and contingency plans are in place. Directors should ask: “What’s our plan if X scenario occurs?” and “Do we have the capacity to absorb shocks while still executing our strategy?” Nearly all directors believe they can guide their companies through a crisis, yet many firms lack formal crisis escalation plans. Boards must not be complacent or overconfident in this regard. A focus on resilience might lead boards to encourage scenario planning exercises, strengthen cybersecurity oversight, and verify that business continuity plans are up to date. It also means maintaining a strategic perspective during turbulence – looking for opportunities to be bold when competitors are cautious, for example – rather than just playing defence. In summary, boards should concentrate on enabling resilient strategy execution, so the company can sustain momentum even when headwinds arise.
• Adapting to technological change and innovation: With technology (especially digital advances like AI) reshaping industries, boards need to ensure their companies’ strategies fully consider technological opportunities and threats. This doesn’t mean jumping on every tech buzzword, but it does mean having the knowledge at board level to oversee tech-driven transformation. Boards should focus on questions like: “How are we leveraging emerging technologies to execute our strategy better or faster?” and “Do we have the digital capabilities needed for the future?” For example, the rise of artificial intelligence is a strategic factor in many sectors – boards should educate themselves and develop governance around AI use, rather than treating it as an IT issue alone. In 2023, a significant number of company boards had not even assigned responsibility for AI oversight, but this is rapidly changing. By 2024, many boards plan to adopt formal AI oversight and consider both the internal productivity implications and external competitive impacts of AI. In South Africa too, boards should be asking how technologies (from AI to automation to fintech) might disrupt their business and how they can harness them. Embracing technology and innovation as part of strategy execution is key to staying ahead; boards should encourage management to invest in relevant innovations and develop the skills needed to implement them. This focus ensures the organisation doesn’t fall behind in the digital era.
• Integrating ESG and sustainability into strategy: Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) concerns have risen on the agenda, but boards must treat them as strategic issues, not just compliance checklists. Stakeholders – from investors to customers – increasingly expect companies to create sustainable, equitable value. Boards should focus on how sustainability and societal impact align with the company’s long-term strategy. For instance, rather than viewing sustainability reporting as a tedious compliance task, leading boards use the data to glean strategic insights and drive decision-making. Only about 47% of directors say sustainability is regularly on their agenda, which suggests many boards could be “missing out on a massive strategic opportunity.” In practice, a board might push management to incorporate climate risks and opportunities into the core strategy (e.g. investing in greener operations that both cut costs and meet emerging regulations), or to link executive performance metrics with ESG goals. By focusing on sustainable strategy execution – such as improving energy efficiency, diversity and inclusion, or community impact in ways that also strengthen the business – boards ensure the company can thrive in a future where responsible business practices are not optional. The key is to embed ESG into strategy (product innovation, supply chain, talent management, etc.), rather than treating it as a separate box-ticking exercise.
• Board effectiveness and strategic alignment: Lastly, boards should continually improve their own effectiveness to better support strategy. A board that is composed of the right mix of skills and that operates with a strategic mindset is a powerful asset. Given new challenges (AI, sustainability, global market shifts), boards may need expertise in areas that were not traditionally represented. Boards should periodically assess if their composition and dynamics align with the company’s strategic needs. For example, if a company is pursuing a digital transformation strategy, having directors with digital transformation experience is a plus. Similarly, boards should ensure robust governance processes that allow for meaningful strategic discussion, not just rubber-stamping. Leading boards spend more time on strategy and less on routine agenda items, as highlighted earlier. By focusing on their own performance – through board evaluations, education, and succession planning – boards can lead by example in going beyond tick-box governance to truly adding strategic value.

Boards should avoid or minimise:

• Micromanaging routine operations: In volatile times, it’s easy for boards to get pulled into detailed operational issues or one-off problems. While oversight is important, boards must resist drowning in minutiae that do not meaningfully impact the strategic direction. As Bain advises, leadership (including the board) should “radically simplify the agenda to exclude many ‘business as usual’ issues that tend to drag discussions into the weeds,” empowering management to handle those matters. For a board, this might mean trusting management to execute day-to-day tasks and only escalating issues to the board that truly require board-level input (e.g. major deviations, crises, or strategic pivots). If the board spends excessive time on operational trivia or endless compliance reports, it leaves less room for strategic dialogue. So, ignore the urge to micromanage the CEO and team on how to do their jobs – instead, focus on what and why (the strategic outcomes), letting management determine the how. By avoiding becoming a “super-manager,” the board stays focused on governance and strategy.
• Tick-box compliance and formalities: Just as management can fall into box-ticking with strategy, boards can fall into box-ticking with governance. While fulfilling fiduciary duties and regulatory requirements is vital, it should be done meaningfully, not mechanically. Boards should avoid treating governance tasks (audit reviews, risk checklists, etc.) as mere formalities – or conversely, avoid overloading meetings with compliance presentations at the expense of forward-looking discussion. For instance, if the company must produce certain reports, the board’s job is to ensure accuracy and oversight, but also to ask “what do these tell us about our strategy?” If something is purely a legal formality with no strategic import, it might be handled in committee or off the main agenda. The key is to not let process trump substance. A good question for boards to regularly consider is: Are we spending our limited meeting time on matters that will drive the company’s future success, or just on ceremonial approvals? By streamlining rote approvals and focusing on insight-rich discussions, boards avoid the trap of governance for governance’s sake.
• Short-termism and reactive pivots: In the face of pressure – whether quarterly earnings stress or vocal shareholders – boards might be tempted to chase short-term fixes that undermine long-term strategy. It’s important that boards ignore the clamor of short-term market noise when it conflicts with strategic consistency. That’s not to say boards should ignore legitimate performance issues, but rather they should avoid knee-jerk reactions like abandoning a sound strategy because of one bad quarter, or jumping onto a trend without due diligence simply because “everyone is doing it.” For example, if a strategic initiative is in its early stages and hasn’t borne fruit yet, the board should give management the runway to prove it, instead of pulling the plug too hastily to appease impatient investors. Likewise, boards should be wary of fad-driven distractions – whether it’s a hot new technology, a flashy acquisition opportunity, or a politicised issue – and apply rigorous scrutiny: Does this align with our strategy? Will it create long-term value? If not, it may be wise to set it aside (ignore it) despite external hype. This disciplined approach helps the company avoid strategic whiplash and maintain a steady course towards its long-term goals.
• Viewing ESG and stakeholder matters as a mere PR exercise: Just as boards should integrate ESG into strategy, they should also avoid the opposite mistake: paying lip service to sustainability or stakeholder issues just to satisfy external observers. In other words, ignore the notion that “checking the box” on ESG is enough. Stakeholder capitalism and sustainability are complex, and superficial actions (like issuing a glossy report with no action behind it) can backfire, leading to accusations of greenwashing or eroding trust. Boards should not approve ESG initiatives that lack substance or disconnect from strategy, simply for image reasons. Instead of, for example, signing off on a broad “we care about climate” statement and moving on, the board should insist on concrete plans (and ignore half-measures). By avoiding symbolic compliance and insisting on real progress (or else not bothering with empty gestures at all), boards ensure the company’s effort and reputation are invested where it truly counts.
• Interference in execution tactics: While we have emphasised board oversight of execution, there is a line between oversight and interference. Boards should be cautious not to second-guess every management decision or create confusion by issuing ad-hoc directives that haven’t been thought through by management. Once the strategy is set and the execution plan agreed, the board’s role is to support and monitor – not to constantly re-design the tactics or bypass management’s chain of command. By ignoring the temptation to dive into management’s lane, boards allow the executives to remain agile and accountable. This doesn’t mean being hands-off on important issues; it means focusing on ends rather than means. A healthy board–management relationship involves trust: the board sets direction and expectations, and management decides the best means to meet them, reporting back on progress. If the board finds itself dictating which software to use or which vendor to choose (unless there’s a compliance or ethical issue), that’s a red flag. Staying out of execution micromanagement preserves clarity and ensures the board’s energy is spent on governance and strategic guidance.

In summary, boards in 2025 and beyond should be laser-focused on the factors that drive sustainable success – strategy execution, resilience, innovation, talent, and prudent risk-taking – and consciously deprioritise the rest. By doing so, they act as true strategic partners to management, rather than just compliance overseers or sources of pressure. Especially for South African boards navigating local challenges (from energy reliability to social inequality) alongside global trends, this balanced focus is crucial. It means directing attention to building competitive advantages and long-term value, and ignoring the noise that doesn’t contribute to those aims.

Conclusion

Developing a business strategy that goes beyond box-ticking and is truly executable is both an art and a discipline. It requires leaders to marry vision with action – to have bold aspirations but also concrete plans, committed resources, and diligent follow-through. The payoff for getting it right is significant: companies that treat strategy as a living, execution-focused capability tend to outperform, achieving what others consider “impossible” and navigating disruptions with agility. Meanwhile, those stuck in old planning ruts often end up with strategies that are “mediocre by design” and never fully realised.

For boards and senior executives, especially in the private sector and JSE-listed companies in South Africa, the mandate is clear. Strategy is a journey, not a checklist. It’s about asking the right questions, making tough choices, and ensuring the whole organisation is mobilised toward common goals. It’s about measuring what matters and being willing to course-correct when reality changes. And crucially, it’s about leadership – providing the guidance, support and oversight so that strategy execution stays on track. As one strategy expert put it, in a time of unprecedented turbulence, success demands “bold vision, world-class execution, and quick adaptation,” which can spell the difference between settling for mediocrity or stretching toward full potential.

By moving beyond a box-ticking mentality, embracing executable strategies, and focusing on the priorities that truly drive value, boards can help ensure their organisations not only craft great strategies on paper but also turn them into great results in practice. The ultimate test of any strategy is in the execution – and in the positive outcomes achieved. It’s time to close the gap between strategy and execution, and make those strategic ambitions a reality. With disciplined execution management and enlightened board oversight, businesses can indeed convert plans into performance, and intentions into impact, even in the most challenging of environments.