The strategy sprint ends, the real work begins

The pattern is recognizable in almost every organization: months of work, a core group that sets everything aside, a tight timetable toward the board of directors or the general assembly. And then, after the strategic plan is approved: applause, relief, and silence. The working group is sometimes even disbanded, and people expect operational management to simply take on the implementation “on the side.” The fate of a strategy is often sealed during this transition, rather than while it is being built. 

An ambitious plan without proper follow-up is almost guaranteed to get stuck. Operational management runs the shop, but rarely has the time, the calm, or the methodology to also lead a change process on top of that. The result is good intentions that slowly evaporate under the pressure of day-to-day operations.

Three domains that are always needed

In practice, there are three domains that together, and not separately, ensure a strategy takes root.

1. Project management translates the strategy into concrete actions, with owners and tight follow-up of partial achievements and interim steps. That is what keeps the drive and energy in the implementation, instead of letting them fade as soon as the plan is "finished."

2. Change management ensures that the strategy also gains support and is truly adopted. Is it clear why we want this? Is everyone aligned? How do you deal with resistance or change fatigue, and at what moments do you give the organization a new injection of energy and focus? Important here is the participation ladder: not merely imposing a new strategy top-down, but strongly focusing on consultation, co-creation and joint implementation during its development and operationalization.

• Support: everyone knows the what & why. Link this explicitly to the mission, not only to figures/KPIs (in social profit, "why does this serve our target group" works better than an operational argument). The importance of leaders setting an example: 'leading by example'
• Resistance: normalize it as part of the process, not as a disruption to it. Distinguish between resistance as a lack of understanding vs. resistance as a real sense of loss.
• Implementation: people responsible, timeline, milestones, reporting. This is the part where plans often fail, because no one has ownership of the follow-up itself. Who monitors the milestones if the person driving the process is also burdened with operational work?
   

3. Interim management, finally, is needed because not every organization has strong project leaders or change managers in-house. Even strong organizations often need support here, both in terms of knowledge and skills and in terms of time and focus alongside ongoing operational activities.

• Capacity: implementation comes on top of business as usual. Without relief, the operational always wins (direct deadline, direct stakeholder) over the strategic (diffuse deadline)
• Expertise: You do not always have people on board with sufficient experience/expertise to bring such a process to a successful conclusion
• External perspective: unencumbered by history, sees blind spots, can name tensions more easily
  
   

The exact mix that is needed differs from organization to organization. One mainly needs structure and tight project-based follow-up, while another needs a focus on culture, collaboration and generating enthusiasm. What is often forgotten: this does not only play out on the floor, among employees and teams. Management and leadership must also continuously stay on board and remain enthusiastic. An implementation process that only looks at the workplace and forgets the top is doomed to run into difficulties over time.

When to seek help

Three questions largely determine whether an organization needs external support. Does your organization already have experience in this domain? Do you have people with the right skills? And is there really enough time to free up these people for this without affecting operational activities? In addition, this also matters: do the internal people have sufficient support to effectively bring about a change? Time, combined with experience, carries the most weight here. Most organizations go through such a process only once every few years. The learning curve that others have already gone through is one you have not yet experienced yourself.

Typical objections

"We'll just take this on as well; it's not that complex." It is. It really requires time, skill, and experience.

"We're not going to pay an external cost; our operational managers can do this too." Operational management is different from implementing a strategy or leading a change. Moreover, in most organizations everyone is already fully occupied with managing operations. Half-hearted work here is often more damaging than not implementing a strategy at all.

"Is all this attention really necessary?" In fact, the real work only begins after developing the strategy. Giving it concrete shape and making it land with every employee is a long-term process: building a strategy takes a few months; implementation often takes a year and a half or longer.

"Surely everyone sees the importance of the strategy?" Too often, the employee’s perspective, with their questions and concerns, is forgotten. That is often the reason an implementation fails. You don't do that work afterwards, when problems have already arisen. It starts at the beginning, to get everyone on board and find the common interest.

Awareness is the first step

Our experience shows that many organizations do succeed in this, provided they dare to critically question whether they have sufficient time and skills for these three areas. So the answer is not automatically “call in external help.” Be aware of the importance of project management, change management and interim capacity in the implementation of a strategy, and consciously devote sufficient attention to this. That awareness is often already the most important step. It immediately creates more focus on these areas.