Author: admin

The strategy session is often the easy part. People come together, ideas are challenged, priorities are debated, and decisions are made about where the business needs to go. There’s energy around the direction and clarity about what everyone wants to accomplish. Then everyone goes back to work. Urgency starts crowding out the important work, client demands take over, new opportunities appear, and the priorities everyone agreed to gradually become something the business intends to get back to. In our experience, strategies lose momentum here, because nobody is actively driving what happens next. 

A growth strategy needs alignment and someone to carry it forward once everyone goes back to their day-to-day responsibilities and demands. 

Someone Has to Own It 

Collective ownership sounds good in theory, but it can quickly dilute accountability. When everyone is responsible for the strategy, it becomes much easier for the daily demands of the business to take priority and for strategic priorities to lose ground. 

Ownership doesn’t mean one person is responsible for delivering every priority. It means someone has a clear line of sight across the strategy, keeps progress visible, connects the work happening across the business and brings the right conversations back to the table when focus gets blurry. 

In a large organization, that responsibility may sit with an executive sponsor, business leader or strategy lead who can keep teams aligned and maintain accountability across multiple priorities. 

For a small business owner or founder, the challenge is different. When you’re setting the direction and running the business, there may be no one naturally positioned to challenge you or stay dialed into the progress. A trusted advisor, peer or external partner provides that discipline. 

A strategy needs someone who is accountable for keeping it in motion. 

Create a Rhythm for Progress 

A strategy requires a deliberate cadence throughout the year in order to understand whether the business is moving toward what it set out to accomplish. 

For some organizations, that may mean a monthly pulse check on a handful of priorities with deeper quarterly reviews. A founder or small business owner may need a standing monthly conversation with an advisor who challenges progress, surfaces distractions and asks the questions that are easy to avoid when you’re accountable only to yourself. 

Without those regular checkpoints, it becomes far too easy to confuse being busy with making progress. 

Measure Movement, Not Activity 

A long list of actions completed can create the impression that a strategy is moving when the business itself doesn’t reflect measurable progress. 

• If the goal was to enter a new market, measure whether you’re gaining traction there. 

• If the priority was to deepen strategic client relationships, assess whether those relationships are broader and stronger. 

• If you set out to grow a new service, track whether the pipeline is developing. 

• If profitability was the objective, look at whether recent decisions are beginning to shift the numbers. 

The measures should connect back to what the strategy was intended to accomplish, not simply how busy everyone has been implementing it. 

Strategy Needs Stewardship 

The organizations that move strategy forward keep the strategy connected to the business long after the initial work is done. 

Strategy requires continued attention, ownership and a willingness to respond as priorities evolve and results become clearer. 

Developing the strategy sets the direction. Stewarding it is how you turn that direction into progress. 

Whether you are leading a Fortune 500 company, running a mid-sized organization or building a business from the ground up, every growth strategy starts with an ambition: win more of the right work, grow revenue, enter a new market, deepen key client relationships, improve profitability or build a business that is stronger next year than it is today. 

The scale may be different, but the objective is ultimately the same: create a clearer path to growth. 

Then the strategy meets the business. 

When growth isn’t happening as expected, opportunities aren’t materializing, revenue isn’t moving quickly enough, or the business keeps getting pulled in directions the strategy was supposed to prevent, the natural conclusion is often that the strategy needs to change. 

Sometimes it does. But we’ve learned that oftentimes there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the strategy. The problem is everything surrounding it. 

Before rewriting it, look at what may be getting in the way. 

ALIGNMENT: Are the decisions supporting the direction? 

Agreement on a strategy doesn’t mean the decisions that follow will support it. 

In a large organization, that may look like leaders interpreting priorities differently or teams continuing to operate as they always have. In a smaller business, it can be as simple as continuing to say yes to clients or opportunities that don’t support where the business wants to grow. 

The question is the same: Are your everyday decisions moving the strategy forward or pulling it off course? 

CAPABILITY: Can you deliver what the strategy requires? 

A strategy can establish where you want to go without giving you everything you need to get there. 

Growth may require expertise you don’t have, relationships not yet established, systems that aren’t ready or capacity that doesn’t yet exist. Entering a new market may require a strategic hire. Expanding a service could involve an external partner. A founder may recognize that the next stage of growth can’t be delivered alone. 

Take stock: Do we have what we need to deliver it? 

INFORMATION: Are you still making decisions with what you knew then? 

Every strategy is built with the information available at a particular point in time. 

As the business moves forward, the environment around it continues to change as clients shift direction, competitors reposition and new opportunities emerge. What you learn along the way may reinforce the strategy or call some of the assumptions behind it into question.  

The key is knowing which changes matter enough to influence what comes next.  

The question to consider: What do we know now that we didn’t know then, and does it change anything? 

RESOURCES: Are you investing behind the growth you said you wanted? 

A strategy only gains traction when the business puts real weight behind its priorities. Declaring a market, client or service a priority means very little if time, money and attention continue to be spread across everything else. 

The disconnect is easy to spot: priority markets are identified but every opportunity is still pursued, strategic clients lack clear ownership, or a new service is targeted for growth without the capacity to build it. The ambition is there, but the resources haven’t followed. 

Growth requires investment and a willingness to deprioritize what no longer supports the direction. If the investment doesn’t follow the priority, neither will the growth.  

So ask: Do our investments reflect the priorities we’ve said matter most? 

APPLICATION: Is the strategy being put into practice? 

A strategy only creates value when it changes how the business operates. Priorities need clear ownership, decisions need to reflect the direction, and progress needs to be understood. Without that connection, the strategy risks becoming something the business talks about rather than something it uses to guide where time, attention and investment go next. 

Consider this: If the strategy disappeared tomorrow, would anything about how we operate change? 

Diagnose Before You Rewrite 

When a strategy isn’t producing the growth you expected, the first question shouldn’t automatically be, “What’s wrong with the strategy?” Look at what surrounds it: alignment, capability, information, resources and how well the strategy is being put into practice. 

Before changing direction, understand where the disconnect sits. A new strategy won’t create capability that doesn’t exist, redirect resources that haven’t moved or bring alignment where there isn’t any. 

Sometimes the strategy needs to change. Sometimes the business around it does. Knowing the difference is what turns strategy into growth. 

The more expertise you have, the easier it is to start with the answer. In technical or professional services that often means leading with capability: here is our expertise, here is what we have built before, here is how it applies to your situation. It’s a natural instinct when you’ve spent years building knowledge and expertise. It sounds confident, yet it is rarely curious. 

That instinct is understandable, but leading with a solution before understanding the problem skips the step that determines whether the solution fits. Capability starts with, “What can we do?” Curiosity starts somewhere else: “What does this client actually need?” That changes the conversation. Instead of looking for a place to apply your expertise, you’retrying to understand what the client is working toward, what’s getting in the way and whether you’re even the right one to help. 

We saw this play out while developing a mining strategy at a previous global AEC firm. employer. Over time the organization had developed capabilities, added tools expanded services, and built strategic partnerships, as new opportunities emerged. Each decision made sense on its own, but collectively, the business had become capable of doing almost anythingwithout a clear view of where it should concentrate efforts. The shift came from narrowing the questions to focus on what was truly required for growth. Only then could we determinewhich capabilities warranted continued investment. Growth followed the focus. 

The sequence of understanding before prescribing sounds obvious when stated this plainly, but it’s much harder to practice in the middle of a live client conversation. It requires asking questions before offering answers: what has changed in the client’s business this year, where they are trying to go, and what have they tried that did not work? Those questions take longer than a pitch, but they reveal whether your solution fits the client’s situation. 

Sometimes curiosity uncovers an immediate opportunity. Other times, it points the client toward another person, discipline, or even another firm. That isn’t a loss. It’s another way to provide value. Clients remember the people who put their needs ahead of winning the work. 

We take the same approach in our own practice. Before recommending anything, we spend time understanding the client’s business, the pressures they are facing and what they are ultimately trying to accomplish. We may enter the conversation with some ideas, but we’re prepared to change them based on what we hear. The recommendation comes after the understanding, not before it. 

When organizations talk about growth, the conversation usually turns to new clients, markets and opportunities. Bringing greater focus to the expertise, relationships and opportunities already within the business can be just as powerful. 

At a previous global AEC firm, there was no shortage of mining expertise, strong client relationships or work being won. Talented subject matter experts were spread across the country without a cohesive national strategy connecting their efforts. Opportunities weren’t consistently tracked, teams weren’t always aligned, and there was no common set of priorities guiding where to focus next. Leadership saw the potential to bring greater direction and discipline to an already successful business. 

That’s when the national mining strategy began to take shape. 

The business aligned around four priorities: 

1. The creation of a dedicated mining team under the direction of a sector leader,  
2. Strategic client development 
3. Partnerships and recruitment 
4. Collaboration – both internally and externally. 

The results were significant. The mining business grew by approximately 125% in less than 18 months. 

It would be easy to credit the strategy alone, but the more interesting lesson is why it worked. The expertise, relationships and opportunities were already there. What changed was the focus. 

Choosing four priorities meant other good ideas had to wait. People aligned their efforts, communicated differently and resisted the temptation to chase every opportunity that came along. 

That’s the part of strategy that often gets underestimated. Focus requires trade-offs. 

There is a cost to concentrating your attention because something else inevitably gets less of it. Avoiding that choice has a cost too. Resources become fragmented, teams pull in different directions, and good opportunities compete with better ones. 

Ambition scattered across too many priorities rarely produces the growth leaders expect. 

There were plenty of directions the business could have taken. Choosing four gave everyone something clear to rally around. 

Before chasing the next opportunity, decide whether it deserves your attention more than what’s already in front of you. That’s where disciplined growth begins. 

Focus is a decision. 

A client relationship that depends on one person is a vulnerability disguised as a strength. That person knows the history, understands the personalities, takes the difficult calls and carries years of context that may exist nowhere else in the organization. When they retire, get promoted or leave for a competitor, much of that knowledge and trust can leave with them, exposing just how dependent the account had become on a single relationship. 

The problem is that the risk rarely feels urgent while the relationship is working. The client is happy, the trusted relationship is strong, and there seems to be little reason to change what is working. By the time the vulnerability becomes obvious, a promotion, retirement or departure may already be in motion. 

The answer is less about succession planning and more about how the relationship is built from the beginning. There is real value in having a primary relationship manager: someone who owns the relationship, understands the client’s business and creates consistency across every interaction. The goal is to build depth around that accountability, so it no longer rests on one person alone. Future leaders and other key team members are brought into client conversations early, where they can contribute, ask questions and develop relationships of their own. That gives the client a broader connection to the organization while creating a shared understanding of the account that doesn’t depend on one person to carry it. 

This is where pre-positioning becomes more than preparing for the next opportunity. At its best, it is the discipline of staying close enough to a client’s business, across enough of your own organization, to understand where they are headed before there is something to pursue. That understanding builds over time through consistent conversations, thoughtful questions and people who stay connected when there is nothing immediate to sell. 

Done well, the client begins to experience the relationship differently. They still have a primary person who knows them well and takes responsibility for the relationship, but they also know who else they can turn to and what those people bring. Different members of the team develop their own credibility and understanding of the client, while staying connected to the broader relationship rather than building their piece in isolation. 

That depth becomes particularly valuable as people and roles change. A future leader who has spent two years participating in conversations, learning the client’s business and building trust doesn’t suddenly appear when someone senior announces a departure. The relationship already exists. Their role can expand naturally, without forcing the client through an abrupt handoff or asking a new person to rebuild years of trust and context from the beginning. 

There is another benefit that extends well beyond succession. When more of the right people understand the client, the organization sees more. A primary relationship manager will naturally understand the account through the lens of their own experience and expertise. Bringing other perspectives into the relationship can surface needs, risks and opportunities that one person may not recognize on their own. A technical leader may hear one thing. Someone in operations may hear another. A different service line may recognize an emerging need that creates an entirely new way to help. 

This is also where stronger relationships can lead to better growth. That depth of understanding is what lets an organization recognize where another capability solves a problem the client is facing, not what the organization wants to sell. 

None of this means surrounding the client with people for the sake of coverage. More contacts do not automatically create a stronger relationship, and clients shouldn’t have to navigate an organizational chart every time they need something. The primary relationship manager still plays an important role in creating continuity and keeping the broader team connected. The difference is that they are no longer expected to carry the entire relationship, and everything riding on it, by themselves. 

One person can own the relationship. One person shouldn’t be the relationship. 

Building that kind of depth takes time and intention. It means bringing people into the relationship before they are needed, sharing what is being learned, creating opportunities for others to build credibility and staying connected to the client’s business even when there is no immediate pursuit on the table. 

The strongest client relationships can survive a promotion, a retirement or an unexpected departure without starting over. The individual who built the relationship still matters enormously, but the trust, knowledge and connection they helped create have become something the organization can carry forward. 

That is the difference between having a strong relationship and having a relationship strategy. 

Strategy is rarely the hard part. Any team with a planning cycle and a conference room can walk out with a plan everyone agrees to. Where things break down is in the months that follow, when scope shifts, budgets tighten, or a competing opportunity shows up and someone has to decide whether the initial plan is still the priority. 

That decision tends to fall to whoever happens to be in the room, not to whoever has the standing to make it. People get assigned to lead initiatives without a clear answer to an important question: if something changes, who determines whether to keep going, and who gets to say stop. Without that answer, decisions are either made by committee, by whoever pushes hardest, or by no one at all, which is its own decision and oftentimes, not the best one. 

This is what we mean by decision architecture. It is the structure beneath the strategy that determines how a choice is made once the plan meets reality. An organizational chart showswho reports to whom. Decision architecture informs who has the authority to choose when it counts. 

Politics live inside every organization, and pretending otherwise does nothing for execution. The difference between an organization or team that moves forward and one that stalls comes down to whether politics are used to push a decision through or to protect someone’s ego. For example, three people vote to proceed and two did not get their way, whathappens next tells you more about the culture than the vote. The two who lost and still show up in lockstep are doing the harder, more valuable work. The two who walk out and spend the next week undermining the decision are the reason plans stall instead of deliver. 

Leadership sets this tone more than any policy can. When disagreements are aired honestly in the room and resolved with respect for the process, the organization’s culturestays aligned even when the final decision isn’t everyone’s preferred outcome. When the real debate happens after the meeting, within side conversations and closed doors, the culture starts working against the strategy instead of for it. 

A strategy without decision architecture is a plan waiting to dissolve at the first sign of friction. The organizations that execute well have already answered the harder question before they needed to: when this gets difficult, who decides, and how does the rest of the team live with it once they have. 

Focus is a decision. So is who gets to make it. 

Not every opportunity moves you forward, and that gap is where good strategy starts to break down. A good opportunity feels exciting in the room. It has energy, it has revenue attached to it, and it is right in front of you. A strategically aligned opportunity does something more specific: it moves you toward where you are trying to go, not just toward more. 

We see this with our clients. One opportunity introduces a new contact to the relationship, and it feels useful, real, and worth having. Another creates a path to an entire team, becausethe timing, relationship, and need all align. Both have value.  One is transactional and the other is positioning. The difference is recognizing the difference before you commit. 

This is where “not yet” becomes a strategic decision.   It’s neither a “hell yes” nor a “hard pass”. It’s understanding that an opportunity has real potential, but the timing is not right, the resourcing is not in place, or the relationship has not matured enough to support. Treating “not yet” as a form of “no” dismisses something worth keeping. Push it too soon, and you risk turning a great opportunity into an average result. 

We have experienced both sides firsthand. One engagement moved forward before the right resources were in place. The work was solid, but it missed the opportunity to turn a client into an advocate. We aim for remarkable. Another came together when the right people, timing, and client were aligned. The response was immediate. The turning point came from timing and discipline, not from the idea itself.  

Choosing “not yet” takes discipline. It gives you the chance to strengthen the conditions that matter most: the relationship, the timing, and your ability to deliver. The organizations that stand out are the ones that reserve their yes for what moves them forward. 

Focus is a decision. Sometimes the decision is to wait for a better one. 

Saying yes to everything is how organizations lose their way. Shiny object syndrome often feels like ambition. New opportunities feel like momentum because there is real energyinvolved and, the revenue looks promising. These are the times when no one wants to be the one  who says no. What happens, is another opportunity is added to the list, even when it’snot a fit, and it gets identified as growth. 

The cost rarely shows where people expect it. 

1. The client pays first. Attention gets divided across too many priorities and ,work that could have been remarkable becomes merely acceptable.
2. The people doing the work feel it next. They carry the strain of a leadership team that will not say no to anything, absorbing the scope creep that comes with chasing everything at once. 
3. Profitability follows. Opportunities that were never a strong fit cost more to win and more to deliver than the return justifies.
4. Leadership inherits the friction. Instead of leading strategically, leaders spnd their time untangling competing priorities. 
5. Culture absorbs the rest. A team watching leadership chase everything stops believing that anything is a real priority.

In our experience, we have rarely seen a structure in place to stop this before it starts. There is no gate, threshold, or moment where someone must make the case before resources arecommitted. Without a gate where an opportunity gets justified, the team’s time, attention and resources are compromised. That structure protects the client relationship, the team, and the margin before any of them are ever put at risk. We recommend a simple scoring assessment for every opportunity. Below the threshold, the answer is no. Anything above it moves forward. Exceptions require the case to be made. This protects client relationships, your people and profitability before they are put at risk. 

 Without a gate, focus moves into reaction and every new opportunity feels justified until. This is the stage where ambition is tested before it turns into cost.  

Focus is a decision. Strategy is protected by the discipline to challenge the next “yes.” 

Every consultant has experienced it. A client asks for advice, agrees with the recommendation, then slowly drifts back to what they were doing before, while still paying for advice they have decided not to use. Rarely is it because the strategy was wrong, but because execution requires something more challenging than a good plan. It requires accountability, commitment and focus. 

Over time, we’ve learned to recognize the signals early. The strategy isn’t usually the problem. Focus begins to drift, competing priorities take over, and teams gradually return to familiar ways of working. It is what happens when an organization has not yet decided that focus matters more than momentum. 

Early in a consulting career, the instinct is to soften the advice in the hope it will be easier to accept. We have felt that pull ourselves. But advice that’s easier to accept is often easier to ignore, delaying the very outcome the client hired us to achieve. 

What we do instead is name what we are seeing, directly, while there is still time to course correct. If a client is distracted by shiny object syndrome, has too many initiatives competing for the same hours, or has dropped the consistency we recommended, we say so. Anyone can tell a client what they want to hear. Our responsibility is to tell them what they need to hear. 

Sometimes that conversation is the turning point and reveals a harder answer: not every client is a fit for the way we work, and that is not a failure on either side. It is a mismatch between what an organization is ready to do and what the engagement requires. Better to know that early than discover it six months into a retainer. 

This is why a discovery call matters as much as the work that follows, because it’s what tells us whether trust can be built and if there’s someone inside the company championing it. 

We lead with generosity, but we’ve learned that generosity without boundaries isn’t sustainable. Protecting our time means preserving the capacity to say yes where we can make the greatest impact. When trust, commitment, and accountability are present from the beginning, difficult conversations become easier, better decisions follow, and meaningful change becomes possible.