The Anatomy of a Failed Strategy

Andrea
Oct 20
6 min read

This article tells a simple story from our daily work. In many companies, we watched plans meet reality... and often, they didn't work.

This made us wonder: Were we the only ones seeing this, or was it a common problem?

The call to look closer

We noticed the same warning signs in different teams. Leaders announced a clear direction and teams tried to follow it. However progress felt very slow and we didn't see any results.

The people involved were committed and skilled, busy and at least at the beginning aligned. Yet, decisions were slow, priorities changed all the time, and this caused confusion in the organization.

It was tempting to find one simple reason for this. But instead, we chose to collect more information, compare notes carefully, and test if this pattern was happening in many places.

From a feeling to the facts

We had a feeling, but we needed facts. We used three sources to get them.

First, a short survey with 110 valid responses (in Oct 2025) gave us timely, practical information. Second, we added structured desk research on strategy and execution. Finally, we combined those with insights from our meetup talk, "The Anatomy of a Failed Strategy," which helped define our terms and examples.

Respondents were mostly based in Europe, coming from companies of all sizes and industries. This allowed us to compare habits in different places without losing the important details of daily work.

Our survey asked simple questions on key points: How is "strategy" defined? Are top goals clear? Are those goals stable within a quarter? How many priorities are people working on at the same time?

We also asked about the success rate of big goals, the time to a "first real result," and the early warning signs that show up before a project fails. Finally, we gathered views on the likely reasons for failure, so we could compare what people believe with what they actually do.

First lessons

Our first lesson was about the word "strategy" itself. Inside companies, almost half of respondents saw it as a long-term plan with fixed steps. A smaller group saw it as a set of choices. A few even called it a list of projects.

This showed that one important word had several meanings. This sent teams in different directions from day one. When people start with different maps, plans multiply without a clear connection. Status reports don't match up, and work slows down before it even begins.

Our second lesson focused on clarity and stability. About half felt their goals were "mostly clear" in daily work. But a large group experienced "unclear" or "mostly unclear" goals during the quarter.

We also learned that goals often change within a quarter. Only one-third said top goals never change. The rest said they change "once," "several times," or "quite often."

This told us many teams do not have stable goals. As a result, their effort is divided across moving targets. Decisions take longer, and progress stops when the focus changes.

Our third lesson was about focus. About half reported having one to three top goals at the same time. The other half reported longer lists, from four to six, and sometimes more than ten, competing goals.

When the list of goals is too long, effort becomes thin. This means fewer clear wins and more frustration as teams only make small bits of progress everywhere.

The deeper problem: results and time

We asked: "How often do big goals actually get done?"

The most common answers were "sometimes" and "often." Only small groups reported "rarely," "almost never," or "almost always."

It’s not because people don't care. It's because the connection from the idea to the daily work is broken. This happens in predictable ways that we can prevent.

We also asked how quickly teams see a first real result after starting. The largest group reported nine or more weeks. Many respondents weren't even sure about the exact timing.

That uncertainty itself is a signal. It points to weak feedback, long approval steps, and a process that doesn’t help people learn quickly. When it takes a long time to see a result, learning slows down and teams lose direction. This leads to more opinions, more meetings, and more changes that erase progress.

Signals on the wall: early warning signs

We asked about early warning signs.

People reported slow decisions and, as you might guess, too many "top priorities." This creates conflict and confusion. They also reported endless meetings with little progress, priorities that change mid-quarter, and work being marked "done" only to be reopened later.

These signals are simple to spot. They often link directly to goals that don't match between departments. They also point to unclear leadership, where no one knows who truly owns a decision.

What failure looks like up close

When execution goes wrong, we saw the same painful effects: doing work over again, wasted effort, delays, and missed deadlines. This created stress, weaker financial results, and made teams feel bad.

People reported that more employees were leaving (higher churn), customers were unhappy, and the company was losing in the market. Some also mentioned more office politics and blaming each other. This destroys trust and makes the next change even harder.

Over time, these effects add up. The organization spends all its energy fixing problems and organizing meetings, not on learning and delivering results.

The central test: naming the real causes

We asked respondents to rate the most likely reasons for missed goals. The same causes came up again and again:

Conflicting Goals: Departments pulled in different directions. They competed for people, time, and budget.
No Shared View: People didn't agree on the top goals. This led to fights about priorities and slow decisions.
Handover Delays: Responsibilities were unclear and approvals piled up, turning work into stop-and-go traffic.
Slow Decisions: Ownership was not clear. People doing the work did not have the power to move forward.
Not Enough Resources: New projects started without enough time, budget, or staff. This left important work half-finished and without support.
Bad Data: Tools and data were missing or old. This meant weak decisions stuck around for too long.

We did see one good sign: almost no one said that quality or customer trust was a low priority. People want to do good work, even when the system works against them.

What teams actually do (and what they value)

In the last 90 days, the most common actions teams took were naming responsibilities and clarifying handovers.

The least common actions? Fully matching the money and people to the top priorities.

This shows a gap between what leaders say is important and where the money and people actually go. When asked what is most useful, people rated "clear goals you can measure" at the top. They also valued a short list of big goals.

This pattern suggests that many teams know what works. They just struggle to do it consistently. This is where simple structures and routines make all the difference.

The return with the lesson

Our first observation wasn't an isolated case. The survey, research, and stories all confirmed a common problem: strategy fails when it is not converted from a plan into daily actions.

The lesson is practical and direct. The easiest path for your teams should point to a few shared goals. Daily rules should support those goals. This is how teams learn faster and deliver results.

Match your goals, budgets, and decision rights to the same outcomes. Clarify ownership before work starts. Make feedback frequent and light. Show progress with simple measures everyone can trust.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a good strategy in simple terms? A good strategy is a clear set of choices about where to play (your market) and how to win (your advantage). It must include clear choices (called trade-offs) about what you won't do, and goals you can measure. This guides daily work and helps people focus.

Why do so many strategies fail in practice? Strategies fail when goals, rewards, and team setups don't change to match the new plan. The work follows old rules, but leaders expect new results. This creates a big gap between what people say and what people do.

What is the fastest way to reduce strategy failures? Publish a few shared goals. Match your budget and teams to those goals. Make it clear who can make which decisions. And get feedback often. This turns strategy from a document into a daily habit.