This blog is based on Strategy = Execution, the Turner methodology and publication by Jacques Pijl. It originated from Turner’s eponymous research project, with contributions from sixty executives, seventy-five case studies, and three hundred sources.

Strategy and Execution Cannot Be Separated, But They Must Be Distinguished

During the research for the publication Strategy = Execution, abstract and philosophically minded executives regularly raised the question of whether strategy and execution can actually be separated. Henry Mintzberg described this interaction back in 1990 as a dichotomy: two entities that cannot exist without one another. That interconnection is crucial, especially in the new normal. Strategy and execution must influence each other, and iterations between them must be possible.

Still, distinction remains essential. Otherwise, it is like responsibility: if everyone takes it, no one truly does. Both strategic formulation and execution contain essential process steps. These cannot simply be combined.
Each requires its own focus and approach. Otherwise, both strategy and execution will fall short. After all, there is a difference between making a shopping list and doing the shopping.

Four Accelerators as a Framework

In the publication Strategy = Execution, four accelerators are identified: the first accelerator focuses on strategy, the other three constitute execution.
Of course, the transition is not entirely black and white; one could easily argue that the second accelerator still involves a large degree of analysis and therefore does not yet qualify as execution.

The Core: Strategy = Execution

Above all, the principle holds that strategy = execution. That is not without reason the title of the research publication. If strategy is the process of determining why you want to achieve something, and how and with whom, that process already influences execution. And if execution is the act of carrying out what has been conceived, that certainly does not mean doing so without thought. On the contrary, professionals are expected to continuously adjust the strategy based on what does and does not work — as often as necessary. Especially in the new normal, where adaptability determines success.

Universal Building Blocks, Dynamically Applied

The question of whether this approach is open or closed, structured or developmental, green or purple, is not relevant. Such terminology adds little value. These classifications may interest change-management specialists but often lead to polarization. The Strategy = Execution model describes universal elements for success – the building blocks. Each building block has proven successful in strategy execution. They cannot simply be skipped. But the model is not a blueprint. It explicitly encourages customization and situational use. This makes it both structured and adaptive – the paradox that works.

“Structured working creates space for customization, flexibility, and the human factor.”

Every so-called “open” or “journey-based” variant of change management can be an excellent starting point, provided it ultimately leads to measurable and tangible results in strategy execution – becoming more structured as goals and solutions become clearer over time.

Turner stands for a direct approach: successfully realizing concrete initiatives from start to finish. This is grounded in the proven conviction that structured working is one of the best ways to create time and space for customization, flexibility, and people in change processes.