By Roger L. Martin<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The common perception is that strategy is done at the top of the org chart, and execution is done below. It is exactly the opposite .<\/p>\n
First, I should explain that I have always hated the use of the term \u201cexecution.\u201d Its common definition is fundamentally unhelpful, and contributes to what executives often call \u201cthe strategy-execution gap.\u201d<\/p>\n
Usually when businesspeople talk about \u201cstrategy\u201d and \u201cexecution,\u201d the former is the act of making choices and the latter the act of obeying them. My quibble with this characterization is that the things that happen in the activity called \u201cstrategy\u201d and the activity called \u201cexecution\u201d are identical: people are making choices about what to do and what not to do. In my 36 years of working with companies, I still haven\u2019t seen an example of a strategy that was so tightly specified that the people \u201cexecuting\u201d it didn\u2019t have to make major choices\u2014choices as tricky and important as the so-called \u201cstrategy choices\u201d themselves.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
For example, imagine that the CEO\u2019s chosen strategy is to differentiate on the basis of superior \u201cfit and finish,\u201d e.g., the flawlessness and detail-orientation of her products. She asks her EVP of manufacturing to please go execute that strategy.\u00a0 That strategy is not sufficiently specified for the …<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"Big](\"https:\/\/isadviser.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/HBR.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n