The theater of strategy
It is 9:00 AM on a board day. On the agenda, in capital letters, it reads: “STRATEGIC DISCUSSION.” The CEO begins a 120-slide presentation titled “Strategic Plan 2025.” Charts abound, acronyms multiply, metrics are projected with optimism. Three hours later, the board applauds. They feel strategic.
But are they really?
The illusion of strategic discussion
In too many boards, “being strategic” has been reduced to an annual ritual of reviewing plans, sprinkled with philosophical discussions about the future. Strategy is talked about, opined upon, debated. But strategy is rarely decided.
The reality is that many of these discussions are:
- Reactive: validating decisions already made by executives.
- Generic: applying preconceived models without adaptation.
- Disconnected: detached from operational realities.
- Inertial: perpetuating past strategies without question.
The PowerPoint-plan syndrome
In this context, the “strategic plan” becomes an annual exercise in packaging initiatives in a convincing format. The medium becomes the message. Form eclipses substance.
Executives quickly learn that the key is to include the magic words (“innovation,” “disruption,” “agility”), show upward charts and optimistic financial ratios, invoke “best practice” benchmarks (even when they do not apply), and recycle past successes as evidence of future capability. The board, overwhelmed by complexity and seduced by the narrative, nods.
The trap of strategic micromanagement
But the problem does not end there. Frustrated by the lack of genuine strategic influence, many boards fall into the opposite temptation: micromanagement. Instead of raising their gaze, they sink into operational detail. Instead of focusing their energy on the critical decisions, they dissipate it across tactical initiatives. Instead of empowering and challenging the executive team, they suffocate it and distrust it.
It is a vicious cycle: the board, feeling excluded from strategy, reacts by micromanaging; executives, feeling controlled, become defensive and evasive; trust erodes, accountability dilutes, and the company loses its way.
Breaking the mirage
How can the board break this cycle and take on a truly strategic role? Some proposals:
Change the conversations: from validating plans to questioning assumptions; from projecting the past to imagining alternative futures; from seeking the right answers to asking the right questions.
Balance the involvement: strategic depth with execution distance; challenge without prescribing; guidance without removing autonomy.
Rethink the dynamics: more debate, fewer presentations; more time for strategic topics, less for operational reports; more independent reflection, less group opinion.
Cultivate cognitive diversity: seek external perspectives to break internal biases; value dissent as an antidote to groupthink; promote a culture of curiosity and questioning.
The truly strategic board does not merely talk about strategy. It shapes it, challenges it, drives it. It does not delegate strategy; it leads it alongside the executive team in a continuous dialogue of vision and execution. For this to happen, we need to reinvent the dynamics and change the conversation — to stop mistaking discussion for direction, presence for influence, and activity for impact. The future belongs to the boards that can do it.
For reflection
- How much time does our board devote to discussing the future versus reviewing the past?
- Do our strategic conversations change decisions or simply validate them?
- Do we challenge the assumptions behind the strategy or take their validity for granted?
- Does our involvement enhance execution or constrain it?
- Do we confuse oversight with micromanagement?
References
- “The Board’s Role in Strategy” — Harvard Business Review
- Charan, Carey & Useem, “Boards That Lead”
- “The Five Traps of High-Stakes Decision Making” — McKinsey Quarterly