I have always found strategy interesting. Not in the sense of polished presentations or big words, but because it tries to create direction. At its core, strategy is nothing more than a deliberate decision about where you want to go and what you choose to focus on and what you deliberately leave out. That sounds simple, but in reality it rarely is. Because this is where things usually start to get complicated.

One reason is that strategy is often developed at a certain altitude. From that perspective, everything appears logical, structured, and coherent. But the further you move down into the organization, the more that clarity begins to fade.

Suddenly, there are different interpretations, competing priorities, and very practical constraints. Not every leadership team is open to feedback. And even when they are, there is often a lack of willingness to surface uncomfortable issues and make them visible. Refining and adjusting is not always an option.

I have seen strategies where the objectives looked solid on paper, but no one could really say what they meant in concrete terms for their own area. I have seen organizations working on multiple initiatives at the same time without a shared narrative. For employees, this often means one thing: constant change without a clear sense of direction. A lot of movement, but very little orientation.

I have also seen situations where a strategy led to several well-designed projects that made sense individually, but ended up blocking each other. Simply because they were running in parallel, drawing on the same resources, without clear prioritization of what actually mattered most.

But it is not always the obvious issues that cause problems. Sometimes it is the small things. A single overlooked role can be enough to destabilize an otherwise well-thought-out strategy.

One example that has stayed with me: A crisis communication strategy had been developed and a training was conducted for all relevant stakeholders. Except for reception. And that is exactly where the first calls come in during a crisis — calls from journalists who know exactly how to lead a conversation. On one side of the line, highly trained professionals. On the other, someone who was never prepared for that situation. A small, overlooked building block with a significant impact.

What fascinates me about this is how often it happens. Across industries, organizations, and contexts. Not because people do not know what needs to be done. But because execution is often underestimated.

Strategies are frequently designed in a linear logic. If we do X, we will achieve Y. Organizations, however, do not operate in a linear way. They consist of dependencies, different perspectives, and very real day-to-day constraints. They consist of formal structures — and at the same time of power dynamics that are not visible in any organizational chart. Micropolitics is always present, whether we like it or not. And it is exactly within this tension that things start to fall apart.

I have always enjoyed working in those spaces where things do not quite come together. Where things do not run smoothly, but instead feel stuck or blocked. Not because the solution is immediately obvious. Quite the opposite. It often takes time to identify the point where things are not working. But that moment, when a knot is untangled and clarity returns, is what drives me.

Sometimes it is about making objectives more tangible. Sometimes about aligning initiatives. And sometimes simply about identifying the one missing piece that throws everything else off balance.

Strategy itself is rarely the problem. The real challenge is making sure it works.