CEO
The strategy is clear. Business unit leaders are protecting old priorities instead of acting on it.
Illustrative Review output
From competing accounts
to one better decision.
This fictional example shows the level of synthesis a sponsor receives. It is not a client case study and contains no client information.
How the Review worksIllustrative issue
A strategic change has been agreed, but execution continues to drift.
- Decision to inform
- Whether to restructure the business units or address leadership accountability first.
- Review scope
- Executive team, three business units and the path from strategic decision to operating priorities.
Organisational perspectives
Executive team
The direction is understood, but the implications for current commitments have not been resolved.
Business unit leaders
We receive new priorities without permission to stop existing work or clarity about who can decide trade offs.
Movement map
Intent is clear. Movement stops when priorities must be traded off.
- 01Strategic intentClear and broadly supported
- 02Executive decisionDirection agreed
- 03Priority trade offsAuthority and consequences unresolved
- 04Business unit actionOld commitments remain in place
Finding
The primary constraint is not resistance to the strategy.
The executive team has not converted strategic agreement into explicit trade offs, decision rights and consequences for current commitments. Business unit leaders are responding rationally to incompatible demands.
Priority recommendation
Resolve the operating choices before changing the structure.
Run one sponsor led decision process to identify what stops, who owns each trade off and how unresolved conflicts are escalated. Test movement for 90 days before deciding whether structural change is still required.
First 90 days
- Days 1 to 10
Name the five most consequential trade offs and assign a single decision owner to each.
- Days 11 to 30
Remove or pause conflicting commitments and communicate the implications to business unit leaders.
- Days 31 to 60
Review exceptions, delays and escalation patterns for evidence that decision flow has improved.
- Day 90
Decide whether movement has resumed and whether any structural intervention remains necessary.
What this example demonstrates
A Review does not produce a long catalogue of observations. It identifies where movement stops, explains the mechanism and gives the sponsor one prioritised next decision.
A confidential starting point
Discuss the issue before deciding on the engagement.
The first conversation is exploratory. A Review is recommended only when the stakes are consequential and the explanation remains uncertain.
Discuss the issue