Every CEO I’ve worked with has been able to articulate their strategy. Clearly, confidently, compellingly. They can describe the markets they are targeting, the competitive advantages they are building, the financial outcomes they are committed to delivering. Most have spent serious time and money developing that strategy. Many have brought in the best minds to pressure test it.
And then they go back to running a company that is not built to execute it.
After working alongside more than 220 CEOs across 23 countries in manufacturing, healthcare, financial services, aerospace, energy and beyond, I have come to a conclusion that makes some leaders uncomfortable. The strategy is rarely the problem. The operating model beneath it almost always is.
The Misconception at the Heart of CEO Leadership
There is a broadly held belief that the CEO’s primary job is to set direction. To see around corners, to make the big calls, to inspire the organization toward a compelling future. Strategy gets the headlines. It gets the board decks, the offsite agendas, the business school coverage.
What does not get enough attention is the infrastructure that determines whether a strategy actually reaches the front line or dies quietly somewhere between the executive team and the people responsible for execution.
The gap between those two outcomes is not a strategy problem. It is an organizational design problem. In my experience, it is the gap that separates CEOs who consistently deliver from those who are perpetually explaining why they did not.
What the Operating Model Actually Is
When I talk about an operating model, I am not talking about org charts or process maps. Those are the artifacts of organizational thinking, not the substance of it.
In practice, an operating model comes down to three things that determine whether strategy reaches the front line or stalls in the executive suite.
Decision rights. Who actually makes which decisions in your organization, not on paper but in practice? In most companies, this is murkier than any CEO wants to admit. Decisions get made by whoever is most persistent, most senior in the room or most willing to absorb the political cost of making them. The result is an organization where decisions get made at the wrong levels, execution slows to the pace of escalation and accountability becomes impossible to assign because ownership was never clear.
Performance rhythms. How does performance data flow through your organization, and how quickly do deviations from plan surface where they can be acted on? Most performance management processes are designed to measure what happened, not to change what happens next. By the time a variance shows up in a quarterly business review, the window for corrective action has often already closed. Companies that execute with consistency have built pre-emptive rhythms, utilizing a countdown decision-making method within their weekly, monthly and quarterly reviews that create early warning signals and critical course corrections rather than historical records.
Accountability structures. Not the performance review process. Not the compensation system. The specific, unambiguous clarity about who is responsible for what outcome and what happens predictably and consistently when that outcome is not delivered. Accountability in most organizations is aspirational. In the organizations that execute well, it is structural.
One industrial company illustrates how quickly execution improves when the operating model is clarified. A major North American railroad was struggling with fragmented execution across 13 divisions: inconsistent procedures, poorly followed processes and a reactionary culture limiting asset utilization. By making decision-making authority, operating cadence and accountability explicit through a locked demand schedule, terminal capacity plan and predictive performance metrics, the results came fast. On-time performance increased 52 percent, network velocity improved 11 percent, and the business delivered $50 million in EBITDA improvement without additional capital investment. Nothing about the strategy changed. What changed was the architecture beneath it.
These three elements, taken together, form the operating model that either translates a strategy into results or absorbs it without trace. Most CEOs inherit this model from their predecessors, never examine it and then attempt to execute a new strategy on top of an architecture designed for a different era.
What I have seen consistently across Brooks’ engagements is that the organizations which sustain margin improvement and predictable performance are those that deliberately link their financial model to their operating model. In these organizations, profit behavior, cash predictability and growth capacity controllably deployed are outcomes of how the organization is designed rather than surprises that show up in the numbers.
Why Strategies Fail in Translation
The data on this is not subtle. The 2025 State of Strategy Execution Report, drawing on more than 250 senior organizational leaders, found that 70 percent of leaders admit they fail at strategy execution. Only 29 percent report strong leadership accountability for execution, and just one in four organizations link performance reviews to strategic goals.
PMI’s 2025 global research, surveying more than 5,800 project professionals and executives, found that only half of projects today meet a modern definition of success. The top barrier cited by executives was a disconnect between planning and execution.
Perhaps most revealing, Gallup’s 2025 State of the Global Workplace report found that global employee engagement fell to 21 percent last year, with lost productivity costing the global economy 438 billion dollars.
CEOs often treat disengagement as a culture problem or a management problem. I would argue it is an operating model problem. When decision rights are unclear, accountability is inconsistent and performance data does not flow in ways that allow people to see how their work connects to outcomes, disengagement becomes a rational response. You cannot inspire people into executing a model that was not designed to deliver their success.
The Question Most CEOs Never Ask
The question I keep coming back to, and one worth sitting with honestly, is this: If your strategy requires the organization to behave differently than it does today, what specifically will change about how decisions get made, how performance gets managed and how accountability gets enforced?
Most CEOs cannot answer that question with precision. Not because they lack intelligence or ambition, but because they have been focused on the strategy itself and assumed that execution would follow.
It does not.
Execution is a product of operating model design, and operating model design is the CEO’s job.
The leaders who consistently outperform their peers are not better strategists. In my experience, they are better architects. They have built organizations where strategy reaches the front line intact, where the people responsible for execution have the clarity, the information and the accountability structures required to deliver expected results. They treat predictability as something that can be engineered rather than hoped for.
What This Requires of CEOs
The practical implication is straightforward, even if it is not easy. Before your next strategy cycle, before the next growth target gets set or the next transformation program gets launched, every CEO should be able to answer three questions clearly.
- Are decision rights in your organization aligned with the strategy you are trying to execute, or are critical decisions being made too high, too slowly or by the wrong people?
- Does your performance management system surface deviations from plan early enough to act on them, or does it primarily explain after the fact why results did not meet expectations?
- Is accountability in your organization structural, built into how roles are designed and how performance is managed, or is it dependent on the personal intensity of individual managers?
If the answers to those questions are uncomfortable, that is the work. Not the strategy refresh. Not the culture initiative. Not the new technology platform.
The urgency of this has only intensified as organizations layer AI initiatives onto operating models that were already struggling to execute their pre AI strategy.
Strategy determines where a company wants to go. The operating model determines whether it ever gets there.
The operating model is the CEO’s responsibility. The leaders who understand that and act on it are the ones whose organizations deliver consistently.
