
Solving Maverick Spend: Making On-Contract Purchasing the Easy Choice
Off-contract purchasing, often called maverick spend, remains one of the most persistent challenges for procurement and finance teams.
Read More
Strategic planning often begins with a spark. Leadership teams rally around a bold vision. The room buzzes with optimism and alignment.
But six months later, that energy fades. Teams scramble, timelines slip, and a familiar question resurfaces: Why isn’t our strategy working?
By Zach Fink
Strategic planning often begins with a spark. Leadership teams rally around a bold vision. The room buzzes with optimism and alignment.
But six months later, that energy fades. Teams scramble, timelines slip, and a familiar question resurfaces: Why isn’t our strategy working?
The issue rarely lies in the plan itself. The analysis is sound. Market positioning is strong. Financial forecasts are realistic. Yet strategy execution falters. The brilliance on paper fails to materialize in practice.
This disconnect between vision and execution is more than an annoyance — it’s a quiet crisis. Harvard Business Review estimates that 67% of strategies fail, while Kaplan and Norton have found that as many as 90% fall short in execution. Compounding the issue, HBR also reports that 95% of employees don’t understand their company’s strategy.
The numbers paint a clear picture: when employees can’t grasp the strategy, they can’t execute it.
So where does strategy execution go wrong?
Too often, organizations confuse strategy with strategic planning and overlook the missing link: activation. Strategy is about the trade-off decisions a company makes to win in the market. Planning involves identifying the tactics needed to execute those decisions. But without activation — the phase where teams are empowered, systems are built, and strategy is translated into action — strategy execution falls flat.
The result is a strategy that looks brilliant on paper but goes nowhere in practice.
The problem only intensifies as organizations face more complexity and faster market shifts. Annual planning cycles no longer match the pace of disruption. Strategic priorities evolve monthly, sometimes weekly, yet planning processes haven’t kept up.
Even the most sophisticated strategies break down when execution isn’t embedded from the start. And those breakdowns tend to follow familiar — yet preventable — patterns.
Strategy execution often fails in predictable ways. These breakdowns aren’t random; they stem from structural flaws that turn well-intentioned strategies into forgotten slide decks.
Many organizations invest more in the performance of planning than the practicality of execution. Leadership spends weeks perfecting PowerPoint slides, crafting a compelling story for the boardroom.
What inspires executives can confuse employees. When strategy exists only in decks, it becomes disconnected from day-to-day operations. The result? Beautiful presentations with no path to real outcomes.
Great strategy needs clear ownership. Too often, strategic plans list high-level goals without defining who’s responsible for delivering them, how success will be measured, or what happens when milestones are missed.
In the absence of accountability, strategy execution becomes no one’s job. People assume someone else is leading the charge while they return to the urgent demands of business as usual.
Even when accountability exists, communication often falls short. Leaders may understand the strategy’s context and intent, but that message rarely reaches the people responsible for bringing it to life.
An all-hands meeting or company-wide email might announce new priorities. However, without consistent, clear, and repeated messaging, teams don’t internalize the strategy. They hear the “what” but miss the “why” — and more critically, the “how.”
Strategy cannot succeed without resources. Yet many plans assume capacity that doesn’t exist. Leaders approve new initiatives without considering whether teams have the bandwidth to deliver or what must be deprioritized to make space.
This creates a no-win scenario where teams are expected to achieve ambitious outcomes while maintaining existing performance — often without additional support. That’s not strategic; it’s unsustainable.
Even well-communicated, well-resourced strategies can lose relevance fast. Too many organizations treat strategy as a fixed document, updated once a year — if that.
Strategy should evolve alongside the business. Without regular feedback loops and adjustment mechanisms, even the smartest plans become obsolete.
While many organizations struggle to close the gap between strategy and execution, some consistently get it right — because they think differently and act accordingly.
High-performing organizations treat strategy as a living process. They integrate it into regular operational rhythms by building cadences of accountability — action-driven meetings managed by leading metrics that can directly influence the outcomes the strategy has set its sights on.
Once strategy becomes part of how the organization operates, execution improves by default.
Rather than relying on static plans, successful organizations understand that strategy isn’t just a plan, but a system — one that doesn’t stop at vision or even planning. These companies link strategic objectives directly to resource allocation, leading (not lagging) performance metrics, and daily workflows.
Systems deliver structure and sustainability in ways a presentation never can.
Instead of announcing strategy from the top down, effective companies involve employees in strategy execution. They create space for questions, feedback, and alignment — ensuring people understand not only the strategy, but their role in achieving it.
This involvement builds ownership, and ownership drives outcomes.
Execution-focused organizations also assess their capacity for change before setting goals. They prioritize clarity over complexity, build in feedback loops, and assign real accountability with clear success metrics.
This isn’t about “move fast and break things.” It’s about moving smart and building resilient strategies that evolve with the market.
Vision and analytical rigor are still essential. They just can’t be static. Adaptable strategies are resilient. The best ones aren’t built for a single moment — they’re designed to flex, respond, and scale.
Execution-focused organizations don’t treat strategy as a once-a-year event. They embed activation and feedback into the operating model. They pressure-test decisions. They evolve.
They don’t just plan strategically. They activate strategy as a system — because even the best ideas are worthless if no one can act on them.
If your organization is ready to move from strategic planning to strategy activation, Acquis is here to help. Let’s build a plan that doesn’t just inspire, but delivers. Learn more
Reach out to the Acquis team
Tags:
Off-contract purchasing, often called maverick spend, remains one of the most persistent challenges for procurement and finance teams.
Read More
Organizations lose approximately 5% of annual revenue to fraud each year. For many finance leaders, that statistic feels abstract — until they examine where fraud actually hides: in manual processes, fragmented data, and gaps between what's requested, approved, and reimbursed.
Read More
Procurement used to be the department of “no.” A checkpoint before spend approval charged with enforcing compliance, checking contracts, and cutting costs. Necessary, yes. Strategic? Hardly. That model no longer holds.
Read More
Off-contract purchasing, often called maverick spend, remains one of the most persistent challenges for procurement and finance teams.
Read More
Organizations lose approximately 5% of annual revenue to fraud each year. For many finance leaders, that statistic feels abstract — until they examine where fraud actually hides: in manual processes, fragmented data, and gaps between what's requested, approved, and reimbursed.
Read More
Procurement used to be the department of “no.” A checkpoint before spend approval charged with enforcing compliance, checking contracts, and cutting costs. Necessary, yes. Strategic? Hardly. That model no longer holds.
Read More