Execution eats strategy for breakfast but execution without strategy leads to burnout
Straddling strategy and execution successfully is rare yet magical
If you work in Silicon Valley or in the tech startup world you’ve likely heard the saying “execution eats strategy for breakfast”. This is a spin on Peter Drucker’s famous saying “culture eats strategy for breakfast”, with the motive behind it being that big ideas abound in startupland, but the companies who end up succeeding are the ones who can execute well.
As someone who rates high on execute in my 5Dynamics assessment, this has always resonated with me. But after 9+ years of working with small & mid-size startups to large tech companies, with those who debate strategies endlessly without building to those who keep building but don’t strategize enough, to those (much rarer) who straddle both, the picture is nuanced.
Strategy without execution leads to failure. This has consistently proven to be true across the board- companies who cannot follow through on product execution, fail to deliver results, delight customers, and will struggle to survive.
Execution without strategy is more complicated. Companies that are high on execution but low on strategy tend to apply a throw things against the wall and see what sticks method. This is the “back into a strategy via trial and error execution” approach. These companies can still succeed, but at a high cost in terms of employee burnout and turnover. They may also get stuck in a “local maxima” in their problem space or miss paradigm shifts, as ideas being executed on are reactive or disproportionately in response to direct customer requests.
Straddling strategy and execution successfully is extremely rare. Successful execution on the right strategy can sustain the momentum of a company for years to come, and result in a step function order of business growth. Companies that successfully do this repeatedly can survive for decades or generations and have an outsized impact on our society.
Culture has a big role to play. In this new spin on Drucker’s saying “culture” takes a backseat and isn’t even mentioned. This is a loss as strong shared values and beliefs help create environments where employees have trust in each other and work together to improve both strategy and execution.
All of these categories are fluid. A company that once balanced strategy, execution, and culture well, might lose key talent and direction. Companies with past successful products typically have more runway to correct the ship when this happens. E.g. Microsoft who faced a “lost decade” in the 2000s was able to ride that out due to successfully entrenched past products & eventually course correct with a culture change (re-focus on customer innovation) and strategy shift (cloud computing). But others like earlier stage startups with limited funding don’t have as much runway so a faster correction is required.
From the outside, it can be really difficult to tell which of these categories a company falls in. To those interviewing for prospective roles I recommend asking these questions (among others) to employees you meet in your interview loop:
Where will this company be in 3-5 years?
How do you prioritize what to work on?
How frequently do you release updates or new products?
What do you value in a co-worker?
#ask: What are other ways you have seen companies balance being strategic and focusing on execution? How has your perspective changed over time?