Why Boards Fail at Strategy: Governance’s Role in Strategic Execution

Many organisations falter, not because they lack a coherent strategy, but because they fail at its execution. The irony is striking: The board – the custodian of long-term value creation in an organisation – will spend significant time on strategic discussions, but few ensure that there is a governance framework to support the delivery of those plans.

Understanding what boards can do to enable strategy execution gives us this opportunity to examine the interplay between governance structures, boardroom behaviour, and accountability. 

The Illusion of Strategic Engagement

Directors believe that they engage with strategy: Annual strategy sessions, off-site meetings, and glossy reports create a sense of accomplishment. However, genuine engagement with strategy requires more than approving a plan. It demands clarity of purpose, rigorous debate, and an unrelenting focus on aligning resources with long-term objectives. Too often, boards confuse approval with stewardship.

This illusion is reinforced when boards adopt a compliance-driven mindset. While risk oversight and fiduciary duties are essential, governance is not merely about compliance. It is a framework for enabling execution, ensuring that decisions made in the boardroom translate into measurable outcomes in the organisation. If boards treat strategy as an episodic exercise rather than as an ongoing responsibility, they abdicate their most critical role.

Aeneas Tacticus, writing in the fourth century BC, warned leaders against complacency. In his work On the Defence of Fortifications, he emphasised that preparation for siege was not an event but a continuous state of readiness. His counsel applies equally to modern boards: Strategy is not a document, it is a discipline.

Common Failures in Strategic Governance

Boards fail at strategy execution for several recurring reasons. These are rarely due to malice or incompetence; rather, they stem from structural and behavioural shortcomings.

1. Lack of Strategic Clarity

Boards sometimes approve plans that are vague, internally inconsistent, or disconnected from market realities. A poorly articulated strategy cannot be executed effectively. Directors must insist on clarity regarding competitive positioning, financial assumptions, and measurable milestones. Without this discipline, management is left to interpret strategy in ways that dilute its intent.

Tacticus warned commanders to ensure clarity in communication during crises, noting that ambiguous instructions in times of siege often led to chaos. The same principle applies in governance: Ambiguity breeds disorder.

2. Insufficient Alignment between Strategy and Governance

A common oversight is the failure to align governance mechanisms with strategic priorities. For example:

• Committees may focus narrowly on compliance and audit, leaving strategic initiatives under-scrutinised.
• Key performance indicators may emphasise short-term financial performance rather than strategic progress.
• Board agendas may devote disproportionate time to historical reporting rather than forward-looking analysis.

Effective governance embeds strategy into every aspect of board oversight, from risk frameworks to remuneration policies.

3. Inadequate Board Composition

The execution of strategy requires a board equipped with relevant skills, diversity of thought, and sector insight. Too many boards cling to legacy compositions that prioritise tenure over capability. Without directors who understand the strategic drivers of value creation, boards cannot provide meaningful challenge or guidance.

Tacticus offered similar wisdom: Fortifications were only as strong as the soldiers who manned them. A structure may appear impregnable, but without disciplined and capable defenders, it will fall. Likewise, a governance framework devoid of the right people cannot safeguard strategy.

4. Failure to Monitor Execution

Approving strategy is only the beginning. Boards must establish robust monitoring mechanisms that track progress against strategic objectives. Too often, dashboards presented to the board are operational rather than strategic i.e. focusing on activity rather than impact. This failure to measure what matters leads to reactive rather than proactive governance.

5. Weakness in Culture and Dynamics

Governance effectiveness is as much about behaviour as it is about structure. Dysfunctional board dynamics – whether driven by groupthink, dominance by a few voices, or an aversion to conflict – undermines strategic oversight. A culture that discourages dissent or critical questioning creates blind spots.

Tacticus repeatedly urged commanders to prepare for betrayal within their own walls, not merely attack from without. His caution reminds us that boardroom weakness is rarely external; it arises from the inability to challenge assumptions and surface inconvenient truths.

The Board’s Role in Strategic Execution

What then is governance’s true role in bridging the gap between strategy and execution? It lies in creating the conditions for success through deliberate practices.

1. Embed Strategy into Governance Architecture

Boards should ensure that their committees, reporting lines, and decision rights reinforce strategic priorities. This might include:

• Assigning explicit oversight of strategic initiatives to a dedicated committee.
• Linking executive incentives to long-term value creation rather than quarterly earnings.
• Incorporating scenario planning and stress testing into the risk agenda.

When governance architecture mirrors strategic intent, execution becomes an organisational imperative rather than a management aspiration.

2. Elevate the Quality of Board Information

Boards can only govern what they understand. This requires information that is timely, relevant, and forward-looking. Strategic dashboards should go beyond financial metrics to include indicators of customer behaviour, technological disruption, and organisational capacity. By demanding insight rather than data, boards equip themselves to steer execution effectively.

Tacticus valued intelligence above mere reports, urging leaders to prioritise actionable insight over raw information. Modern boards must do the same.

3. Foster Accountability without Micro-Management

Boards must walk the fine line between oversight and interference. Accountability is achieved not by encroaching on management’s role, but by setting clear expectations, monitoring progress, and intervening decisively when necessary. This requires courage: to challenge assumptions, to recalibrate when evidence suggests failure, and to hold leaders accountable for outcomes.

4. Invest in Board Capability

Strategic oversight demands continuous learning. Boards should commit to regular capability reviews and targeted development. This may involve adding directors with expertise in emerging technologies, sustainability, or stakeholder engagement. It may also require challenging entrenched norms that prioritise social cohesion over effectiveness.

5. Reconsider Boardroom Behaviour

Finally, boards must pay attention to how they work, not just what they work on. High-performing boards cultivate cultures of curiosity, respect, and candour. They recognise that effective governance depends on rigorous debate rather than on manufactured consensus. Chairpersons play a critical role in setting this tone – ensuring that every voice is heard, that challenge is welcomed, and that decisions are grounded in evidence rather than in ego.

From Strategy Approval to Strategic Stewardship

Boards that fail at strategy execution often do so because they view governance as a brake rather than an accelerator. In reality, governance is the engine that converts strategic intent into organisational performance. This requires a shift from episodic engagement to continuous stewardship; from approving plans to owning outcomes.

Aeneas Tacticus knew that defence required vigilance long after the enemy had retreated. Likewise, boards must remember that strategy demands constant attention – not annual ritual. In an era defined by volatility and complexity, the cost of strategic failure is not merely lost opportunity; it is existential.

Image: © Robert Kneschke via Canva.com