I will start this with a familiar situation that many of you must have faced. The boardroom is silent. A presentation has just ended. Everyone nods at the vision slide. The mandate sounds bold, even inspiring. And then comes the quiet question: “So... who’s actually going to do this?”

I’ve seen this play out too many times across ministries, fund boards, and family offices. The mandate is clear. The intention is strong. But the gap between strategy design and measurable outcomes is often wide—and widening.

Over the years, I've come to believe that strategy without built-in accountability isn’t just incomplete—it’s risky.

Let me explain.

We’ve Moved Beyond the Era of Just Good Ideas

There was a time when a well-written policy or a polished slide deck could signal progress. Today, no one is buying that. Not regulators. Not stakeholders. Certainly not the public.

In today’s world—especially in fast-growing environments like the Gulf—ideas are cheap. Outcomes are currency.

This is particularly true for institutions under public or cross-border scrutiny. Whether it’s a sovereign wealth fund rolling out ESG targets, or a family enterprise formalising succession plans, the real question isn’t what are you doing—it's how do you know it's working?

The Mandate Myth

Here’s where the misunderstanding begins.

Mandates are often treated as strategic finish lines. As though issuing a directive or drafting a roadmap means the job is done.

But mandates are only the start. What comes next is where things often fall apart:

• Who owns the milestone?
• Who is affected by the change?
• What are the compliance and reporting triggers?
• What happens when the strategy hits a roadblock?

I remember advising a large regional enterprise on governance restructuring. The board approved the new structure quickly. What they hadn’t planned for? Department heads weren’t aligned, legal teams had outdated documents, and junior staff had no idea what the new SOPs meant for daily operations.

The mandate was clean. The outcome? Not so much.

Building for Outcome, Not Optics

One of the first shifts I made in my own approach was this: I stopped asking clients “What’s the strategy?” and started asking “What happens three months from now if nothing moves?”
It’s a very different conversation.
It forces clarity on:

• Institutional preparedness
• Role-level ownership
• System dependencies
• And most importantly, timelines that don’t stretch into strategic infinity

It’s also a great way to uncover silent resistance—the kind that doesn’t show up in board meetings but quietly kills momentum.

Outcomes Need Infrastructure

You can’t deliver outcomes on enthusiasm alone. Institutions need executional infrastructure—even if that sounds boring compared to vision statements.

What do I mean by that?

• Templates for decisions that recur
• Governance rhythms that don't collapse under pressure
• Escalation paths that don't rely on personal relationships
• Digital tracking—not for micromanagement, but visibility

I've seen teams that lacked these basics stall even with world-class consultants and significant capital. Strategy doesn't fail because people don’t care. It fails because people don’t know who owns what once the consultants leave the room.

Accountability Is Not a Bad Word

Some institutions flinch at the word accountability. It feels harsh. Maybe even political.

But I’ve found that when framed correctly, accountability actually creates psychological safety. It tells people: "You’re not being left to figure this out alone. There’s structure here. There’s support."

And for decision-makers at the top, it removes the guesswork. It ensures that strategy execution doesn’t depend on memory or mood, but on measurable systems.

A Case That Stuck With Me

A few years ago, I worked with a Gulf-based development authority. Their challenge wasn’t vision—they had one of the most compelling roadmaps I’d seen. The problem? Execution varied wildly across teams.

We didn’t scrap the strategy. We rewired the way it was owned.

Each division created quarterly outcome dashboards—not for external reporting, but internal alignment. Strategy leads met bi-weekly, not to repeat updates, but to solve blockages together. Progress was slow for the first quarter. By the second, results started showing. By the third, the culture had shifted from what we planned to what we’ve achieved.

That shift—subtle but powerful—was the real outcome.

What I’ve Learned So Far

Rethinking strategy in the age of institutional accountability doesn’t require heroics. It requires clarity, cadence, and consequence.

It also means letting go of a few things:

• Letting go of the belief that issuing a mandate is enough
• Letting go of the idea that governance is someone else’s job
• Letting go of timelines that stretch so long no one remembers the point

Instead, we need to:

• Align strategy with execution from the start
• Build ownership into roles—not just org charts
• Use accountability to empower, not to punish

Where Do We Go From Here?

If you’re someone involved in shaping institutional strategy—whether in the public sector, a boardroom, or an advisory role—here’s my ask:

Start designing with outcomes in mind

Not just deliverables. Not just tasks. Outcomes.

Outcomes people can see. Outcomes they can trust. Outcomes they can learn from.

Because in today’s world, the cost of misalignment isn’t just wasted effort. It’s lost trust.

And in high-stakes environments, trust isn’t a byproduct—it’s the asset you can’t afford to lose.

If this resonates with your work—or you’ve felt the tension between mandates and execution in your own organisation—I’d welcome a conversation. Let’s not just write better strategies. Let’s build outcomes that actually move things forward.