Dr. Asma Al-Aufi is a university lecturer, and Managing Director of Moon Group LLC, bringing expertise in higher education and logistics.
getty
A strategy can look excellent on paper and still fall apart in practice. The objectives are clear. Senior management has agreed. Responsibilities have been assigned. A meeting is held. An email follows, and everyone appears to know what happens next.
Then reality takes over.
A few months later, one department is doing exactly what was expected, another has interpreted the strategy differently, and somewhere else, very little has changed.
This gap between what leaders intend and what people actually do is one of the most interesting parts of organizational change.
It is also remarkably familiar across very different environments. My years spent working across higher education, research and the logistics sector reveal an unexpected similarity. A university policy and a business strategy may look completely different, but both eventually depend on people. And people do not simply receive instructions and reproduce them exactly as written. They interpret them.
That is where implementation really begins.
A message sent is not necessarily a message understood.
Organizations are often very good at communicating. There are emails, meetings, presentations, guidelines and increasingly sophisticated internal platforms. Yet communication and understanding are not the same thing.
Consider a manager introducing a new operational procedure. From the manager’s perspective, the instruction may seem perfectly clear. The employee receiving it, however, is trying to connect that instruction with existing procedures, customer demands, workload and previous experience.
The result may be quite different from what leadership imagined.
This is something my research into policy implementation makes particularly visible: People make sense of change before they enact it. The same pattern can be seen in everyday business operations.
So perhaps the more useful question is not, “Did everyone receive the strategy?” It is, “What did people understand the strategy to mean?” Those are two very different questions.
The view from the ground matters (the micro level).
There is another problem with strategy: The further away someone is from the actual work, the easier implementation can look.
On paper, changing a process may require three straightforward steps. On the ground, those three steps might affect a customer, a driver, an administrator, a supplier and a deadline all at the same time.
This becomes particularly visible in logistics, where one seemingly small operational decision can create consequences further along the chain. Higher education is not so different. A policy designed at institutional level eventually reaches lecturers and students, and its success depends partly on how workable it is in their everyday environment.
This is why frontline perspectives matter. Not because every employee needs to approve every strategic decision, but because the people doing the work often see obstacles that are invisible from the boardroom.
A simple conversation before implementation can uncover them: What will make this difficult? What are we missing? What would help this work?
Be careful with the word ‘resistance.’
When implementation goes wrong, there is often a tempting explanation: People are resistant to change.
Sometimes they are. But sometimes “resistance” is simply the easiest label for a problem that has not been properly investigated.
An employee may understand the goal but not know what is expected of them. Two managers may be giving different instructions. A new procedure may conflict with an old one that was never removed. People may agree with the change but lack the time, tools or confidence to implement it.
Calling all of this resistance misses the point.
When behavior does not change, the first question should be why. That conversation can reveal whether the problem is attitude, understanding, resources or the strategy itself.
Strategy needs to survive real life.
Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes organizations make is putting enormous effort into developing strategy and comparatively little into what happens after its launch.
Implementation needs attention of its own. Who will actually carry this out? What will they need to do differently on Monday morning? What could get in their way? And how will leadership know whether practice is moving in the intended direction?
Then comes the part that is easily forgotten: going back and checking. Not six months later when performance numbers reveal a problem. Early enough to hear what people are experiencing and make adjustments while the strategy is still taking shape. That is not poor planning. It is responsive leadership.
Watch out for the space between intention and action.
Working at the intersection of academia and business offers an unusual view of this problem. Research helps explain why implementation is complex; operational leadership shows just how quickly that complexity becomes real.
Across both worlds, the lesson is surprisingly simple. A strategy does not succeed because it was intelligently designed. It succeeds when people can understand it, translate it into their own context and make it work in practice.
The announcement, therefore, is not the end of strategic leadership.
It may only be the beginning.
Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
