The Execution Myth: Why 90% of Strategies Fail (And It's Not What You Think)
The conference room falls silent as the quarterly results flash on screen. Another strategic initiative has fallen short. Revenue targets missed. Market share declining. Digital transformation stalled. The CEO's question cuts through the tension: "What went wrong?"
The answer comes predictably: "Execution. We had a solid strategy, but execution fell short."
It's the most comfortable lie in business. And it's killing our organizations.
The Execution Excuse: Why We Love It
Before we expose this myth, let's understand why it's so appealing. Blaming execution feels logical:
Blaming execution provides psychological and organizational comfort by:
It protects leadership credibility: "My strategic thinking was sound."
It maintains strategic confidence: “No need to question fundamental approach”
It suggests fixable problems: "We just need better processes."
It preserves organizational dignity: "We're smart; we just stumbled on implementation."
It offers clear next steps: "Let's improve our project management."
The execution narrative has become so embedded in business culture that questioning it feels almost unthinkable. We've built entire consulting industries around "execution excellence." Business schools dedicate courses to "strategy implementation."
But what if this widely accepted wisdom is not just wrong, but dangerously counterproductive?
The Numbers Don't Lie (But Our Interpretation Does)
Let's start with the sobering reality every business leader knows but few truly confront:
60 to 90% of strategic plans never fully materialize (Harvard Business Review, 2022).
90% of companies fail to achieve their growth objectives (Bain & Company, 2012).
70% of large-scale transformations fail (McKinsey & Company, 2022).
Only 11% of executives believe strategic planning was worth the effort (Bain & Company, 2006).
The Execution Myth - The Numbers Don't Lie (But Our Interpretation Does)
Here's the uncomfortable question: If our execution capabilities are so consistently poor across industries, strategy archetypes, time periods, and organizational forms, why haven't we gotten better at it despite decades of process improvements, program and project management sophistication, dedicated EPMOs, PMOs, and strategy delivery units, extensive strategy implementation education, and the proliferation of strategy implementation frameworks?
The Execution Paradox
Consider this paradox: Organizations successfully execute complex initiatives every day. They launch new products on schedule, complete major technology implementations, manage global supply chains across dozens of countries, coordinate thousands of employees toward common goals, and execute financial transactions worth billions flawlessly.
Yet these same organizations, with proven execution capabilities, somehow fail 60 to 90% of the time when it comes to strategies.
The answer lies not in execution capability, but in what they're being asked to execute. As illustrated in Figure 1, the 2x2 matrix visually maps the relationship between the quality of strategy formulation and the quality of strategy execution. The most deceptive quadrant is the lower right (poor formulation, good execution) where well-executed but poorly formulated strategies lead to failure, yet the blame is mistakenly placed on execution, illustrating the Execution Paradox. Despite having strong execution capabilities, organizations frequently fail not because execution is weak, but because they are executing the wrong strategies. This misdiagnosis sustains the Execution Myth, where failures are erroneously attributed to implementation flaws rather than strategic misdirection.
Figure 1: Strategy Formulation Versus Strategy Execution
When "Good Strategy" Isn't So Good
Let me share three real scenarios that illustrate the execution myth in action:
Case 1: A Retail Giant's Digital Transformation
The Strategy: "Transform into a digital-first company within 18 months. Increase online sales by 150%. Implement omnichannel customer experience."
The Execution: Flawless. IT delivered the e-commerce platform on time and under budget, marketing launched digital campaigns, and store operations integrated online inventory.
The Result: Online sales increased by only 45%. Customer satisfaction dropped and store traffic declined faster than online growth compensated.
The Diagnosis: "Execution problems. We need better change management."
The Reality: The strategy assumed customers wanted omnichannel integration, but research revealed they valued speed and convenience over integration. The strategy solved the wrong problem, brilliantly.
Case 2: A Manufacturing Company's Innovation Strategy
The Strategy: "Become the innovation leader in our industry. Invest $50M in R&D. Launch 12 new products annually. Achieve 30% revenue from new products."
The Execution: Perfect. An R&D budget was allocated, innovation processes were implemented, a new product pipeline was filled, and launch schedules were met.
The Result: New products cannibalized existing offerings, profitability declined, and the market responded poorly to innovation pace.
The Diagnosis: "We need better market research and launch execution."
The Reality: The strategy assumed their stable, risk-averse customer base wanted rapid innovation. Instead, they needed incremental instead of radical innovations, making the strategy contextually inappropriate.
Case 3: A Consulting Firm's Growth Strategy
The Strategy: "Double revenue in three years through aggressive market expansion. Enter five new geographic markets. Hire 200 consultants."
The Execution: Exceptional. Offices were opened on schedule, consultants were hired and trained, client outreach intensified, and systems were scaled appropriately.
The Result: Revenue grew by merely 23%. Client satisfaction declined, consultant utilization dropped, and several new offices closed within 24 months.
The Diagnosis: "Sales execution wasn't aggressive enough."
The Reality: The strategy ignored market saturation and the time required to build trust-based relationships. Fast expansion conflicted with their value proposition of deep expertise.
In each case, execution was exemplary. Strategy was the problem.
The Strategy Gap: Systematic Misalignment Between Method and Context
The core of strategic failure lies in what our research identifies as the Strategy Gap - the disconnect between the strategy approach an organization needs and the one it actually develops. This gap manifests in three systematic patterns:
1. Contextual Misalignment Organizations apply strategy approaches designed for stable environments to complex, uncertain challenges. Linear planning models dominate even when adaptive or experimental approaches are contextually appropriate.
2. Capability Mismatch Strategy approaches exceed organizational change capacity or ignore internal constraints, creating implementation impossibility regardless of execution quality.
3. Tool Dependency Default reliance on familiar frameworks (SWOT, Five Forces, BCG Matrix) regardless of situational appropriateness, driven by educational exposure and consulting standardization.
The Strategy Gap: A Better Framework
Instead of the execution gap, we need to recognize the Strategy Gap, the systematic lack of appropriate strategy formulation approaches matched to organizational context and strategic challenges.
The execution myth persists because it asks the wrong question: "How can we execute better?"
The Strategy Gap framework asks a more fundamental question: "Is this the right strategy for our situation?"
This shift changes everything:
Instead of improving implementation, we improve strategic thinking
Instead of executing harder, we choose more wisely
Instead of perfecting processes, we adapt approaches
Instead of following plans, we solve problems
What This Means for You
If you recognize your organization in these patterns, you're not alone. The execution myth is pervasive precisely because it feels true. But recognizing the Strategy Gap opens new possibilities:
For Leaders: Stop accepting "execution problems" as explanations for strategic failures. Dig deeper into whether the strategy itself makes sense.
For Strategists: Develop context-sensitive approaches rather than applying generic frameworks. Build adaptive capacity into strategic planning.
For Organizations: Invest in strategic thinking capabilities, not just execution improvements. Build systems that detect and close Strategy Gaps.
The Question That Changes Everything
Before you blame execution for your next strategic disappointment, ask yourself:
"Are we executing the wrong strategy perfectly, or the right strategy poorly?"
The answer will determine whether you spend the next year improving processes or improving strategy. One leads to incremental gains in implementing flawed approaches. The other leads to breakthrough performance through strategic wisdom.
Which path will you choose?
Strategic Implications: The Competitive Advantage of Sophisticated Strategy Selection
The execution myth represents both crisis and opportunity. Our analysis of over 300 strategy tools developed over the past 100 years reveals an enormous expansion in available strategy tools, yet most organizations continue relying on a narrow subset of familiar frameworks. While competitors remain trapped by execution bias and limited tool awareness, organizations recognizing the primacy of strategy approach selection can systematically outperform through better strategic alignment.
The competitive advantage belongs to those sophisticated enough to match strategy formulation approaches to their specific strategic contexts and challenges, rather than defaulting to inherited or familiar methodologies regardless of environmental fit.
About This Research
This series is based on comprehensive research from the forthcoming book "Business Strategy Formulation: The 7C Strategy Wheel" (Routledge, 2026), which introduces the most extensive strategy toolkit available, featuring seven strategic postures, 28 strategy approaches, and 59 methods derived by analyzing and synthesizing over 300 strategy tools, 25 theoretical perspectives, 2,000 literature pieces, and 200 public and private sector strategies.
Next in this series: "The Seven Strategy Deficits: Why Smart Organizations Create Predictably Bad Strategies" examines the recurring formulation patterns that undermine strategic effectiveness before execution begins.