|
Author: LMDSolutions  Most strategic plans don’t fail because they’re badly written. In fact, many of them are thoughtful, well researched, and created with genuine care. They make sense in the room where they are approved. They align with the organizations aspirations. They tick all the right boxes. And then, quietly, they stall. Not because people are incapable. Not because teams are resistant to change. But because somewhere between approval and action, the plan never really becomes anyone’s. I once watched a board enthusiastically approve a strategic plan that everyone agreed was “strong.” The language was solid, the priorities made sense, the vote was unanimous. CHECK! We got this! A few weeks later, I was back in the organization asking a simple question: “Which part of this strategy feels most important to you right now?” The answers were hesitant… Different… Sometimes blank. They barely remembered what we said in the plan. This didn’t happen because people didn’t care, but because the plan lived in the document, not in them. The didn’t see themselves in it at all! That was the moment it became clear: approval had happened, and Ownership had not. If you’ve spent time in boardrooms or leadership teams, you’ll recognise this pattern. A plan is launched with energy and optimism. There is a sense of relief that direction has finally been agreed. For a moment, it feels like progress. Then the real work begins and the questions start to surface.
When those questions don’t have clear answers, people don’t push back loudly. They don’t revolt. They adapt quietly. They comply, but they don’t commit. This is where many organizations misread what’s happening. Leaders see slower momentum, hesitancy in decision making, or uneven follow through and assume there is an execution problem. So they respond with more accountability, more reporting, or more pressure. But the issue is rarely discipline. It is ownership. Ownership isn’t created by approving a strategy. It’s created when people understand why the direction matters, how it connects to their work, and where they are trusted to exercise judgement rather than just follow instructions. When strategy is something done to the organization rather than with it, people may respect it intellectually while remaining emotionally detached. On paper, there is alignment. In practice, there is distance. That distance shows up in subtle ways. Decisions take longer because people are unsure how much freedom they have. Teams prioritize what feels urgent rather than what was agreed. Leaders spend more time reinforcing the plan than using it. These are not implementation failures. They are early signs that ownership was never built into the system.  From a governance perspective, this distinction matters deeply. Accountability can be assigned through structures and reporting lines. Ownership cannot. It must be designed deliberately through clarity, inclusion, and permission. When plans rely on compliance alone, they create surface order but fragile momentum. When ownership is present, alignment holds even when conditions change… because people know how to think, not just what to follow. Strong governance does not confuse endorsement with engagement. It pays attention to how strategy is experienced beyond the board table. If people feel disconnected, the work isn’t finished yet. Over the coming weeks, I’ll be sharing a practical diagnostic model that helps leaders and boards identify where ownership is missing and why well-intentioned plans so often stall before they truly begin.
If this feels familiar, you’re not alone — and you’re not failing. Join my mailing list if you want deeper insight into how strategy becomes something people can actually carry, not just comply with. Because a plan only works when people see themselves inside it. Comments are closed.
|
|
|
At LMDSolutions, we ignite potential and fuel businesses
and organizations to thrive! 705.698.4818 | [email protected] © 2024 LMDSolutions Privacy Policy |Data Collection Policy |