Avicenna Academy for Leadership interviewed Jacques Pijl from Turner about the role of strategic leaders in strategy development and strategy-execution. This interview is part of Avicenna’s Strategy Mastercourse, where Jacques, as one of the top lecturers, helps leaders turn strategy into results.

Key points:

> Leaders are not judged by the elegance of their plans, but by their execution. Execution is the proof of the strategy.

> Run vs. Change. Clearly distinguish between daily operations (run) and change initiatives (change).

> The change portfolio as the hinge. Everything hinges on a strong link between strategy and execution: the change portfolio.

> Purpose and priorities. Purpose must be translated into concrete priorities and initiatives.

Strategy-Execution: A Desert Journey with Snacks!

The Strategy Mastercourse focuses on the role of strategic leaders in developing and implementing strategy within organizations. The program connects acquired knowledge to concrete strategic action, offering a practical approach. What does this role look like today? Where do the biggest challenges for strategic leaders lie, and where can they seize opportunities? We discussed this with Jacques Pijl, director of Turner Strategy-Execution, author of the book Strategy = Execution, and a top lecturer in the Strategy Mastercourse. His answer? Leading strategy-execution. Period.

Jacques, in your book Strategy = Execution, you describe how views on strategy have evolved over the years. You suggest that strategy execution has itself become strategic. What do you mean by that?

“Yes, that’s correct. Previously, leaders only had the strategic challenge of creating space, direction, and conditions without getting in the way. That has changed significantly. Today, strategy execution itself has become strategic for two main reasons: issues have become much more complex, and strategic execution is less optional. It must succeed, or leaders will quickly be held accountable.

“When Sven Kockelmann questions political leaders on Radio 1, he mostly focuses on what has actually been accomplished, not on the beauty of the policy on paper.”

Execution is where it becomes clear if plans materialize or not. Once strategic leaders realize that execution is something to think about strategically, real progress is made. This adds complexity to the role: when should you be closely involved, and when should you step back? Strategic leaders need to know when to engage closely due to responsibility and when to trust their team to deliver. It’s more complex than before, but incredibly rewarding.”

How can strategic leaders develop this intuition?

“A key part of this is learning to distinguish between ‘run and change.’ ‘Run’ encompasses an organization’s daily processes, which leaders can oversee from a distance. These processes consume about 95% of time, budget, and resources. ‘Change’ is where the challenge lies—where new initiatives take shape. Many organizations take on far too much on the change side, leading to what I call ‘organized disappointment.’ Resources here are limited, so it’s critical to be selective.”

“Organizations often take on too much on the change side, leading to what I call ‘organized disappointment.’”

“As a leader, it’s crucial to clearly distinguish between the run and change aspects of your organization. Then, on the change side, focus on two things: choose the most critical change initiatives—those that really matter—and distinguish between three types of initiatives: improvement (type 1), renewal (type 2), and innovation (type 3). Ideally, select no more than three initiatives per type, forming a sharp and balanced change portfolio of nine initiatives in total. The key is to follow through on those choices, guiding them all the way to execution.”

What does this guidance entail?

“For each critical change initiative, form a small execution coalition. Our research shows that 5-8 people is an ideal group size. The idea is simple: on the change side, organize around each initiative independently of how the run side is structured—independent of the ‘org chart.’ This is agile in its purest, simplest form. With this team, you’ll see the initiative through to execution, providing guidance at the right level. A strategic leader’s role is to remove obstacles and celebrate successes along the way. I often compare execution to a desert journey: it’s long, challenging, and demanding, but that’s what it takes to reach the other side. Along the way, find ‘oases’ where you can catch your breath and celebrate small wins—like enjoying a Dutch ‘bitterbal.’ This helps sustain the journey through the desert of execution on the change side until the initiative can integrate into daily processes.”

So it’s essential to have the right people in the execution coalition and give them the trust to complete the project successfully.

“Absolutely! But even with top people in the execution coalition, as a leader, you still play a crucial role in overseeing execution to the end. I recently heard a useful phrase for this: ‘tight, loose, tight.’ Be tight at the start to set a clear direction, loosen up to give the team freedom to execute, and then tighten up again at checkpoints and the end to ensure proper closure and learning. Learning is often overlooked, but concrete execution projects are not only valuable for the organization; they’re also a fantastic way to learn.”

In your book, you mention the 20-80 rule for execution: 20% of time for strategy, 80% for execution. How can leaders achieve this?

“Based on our research and the Strategy = Execution methodology, we recommend dedicating 20% of time to strategy, with ample focus on purpose-driven thinking. A meaningful purpose is more motivating than dozens of goals. Once your organization’s higher purpose is clear, it provides direction and motivation. Then, allocate 80% of resources to execution—not necessarily for efficiency but to confront policy with practice. This is where you prove which ideas work. The 20% strategy is now more critical than ever. Spend less time on strategy, but make it rigorous—not a vague notion or a so-called ‘dot on the horizon,’ which is often an excuse for unclear strategy.”

“It’s a powerful paradox: spend less time on strategy, but make that time well-invested and clear, not a vague notion or ‘dot on the horizon.’”

Does this paradox demand more flexibility from leaders?

“Yes, and here we encounter what I call a false dilemma. Organizations have enough real dilemmas, such as resource allocation to fill schedules (think of sectors like education or healthcare) and labor shortages. A false dilemma is whether to be persistent or flexible in execution. It’s not really a dilemma; it’s a balance you need both sides. Be persistent about purpose and flexible in execution, especially where unknowns are present. Similarly, whether execution should be top-down or bottom-up is not a dilemma: provide a clear top-down framework and empower teams to fill in the details bottom-up.”

Would you say purpose-driven thinking is the biggest opportunity for strategic leaders?

“Purpose-driven thinking is incredibly powerful and essential in light of pressing societal issues—sustainability, inclusion, competitiveness, labor potential, innovation, etc. Purpose is currently the biggest fuel for strategy-execution; people are eager to work towards it. But it’s essential to translate purpose into concrete priorities and change initiatives to ensure it leads to action.”

Selecting those change initiatives is a major focus in your contribution to the Strategy Mastercourse, correct?

“Correct! The issue often lies not in strategy (or ‘policy’ in the public sector) but in concretizing it by choosing the right initiatives. I refer to this as the ‘hinge’ between strategy and execution. Once strategy is defined in the 20%, the next step is to choose the change portfolio carefully. What projects will we really commit to this year? This is what enables effective execution.”

“It all hinges on a strong link between strategy and execution: the change portfolio.”

What else do you want participants to take away from your contribution?

“I sense a strong eagerness from participants to find answers. After completing plans, the next annual planning cycle often starts immediately, or worse, the next multi-year plan. Business planning can feel like an insatiable monster that constantly demands new input, without necessarily improving execution. Awareness of this is growing. When I share insights from Strategy = Execution and my experiences as an advisor, participants see how real breakthroughs can be achieved—from planning to execution. One of my favorite examples is the ‘one-day annual plan,’ a best practice I always share. It’s possible, and I explain how in my contribution!”