A 20th Century Problem with a 19th Century Solution
A 20th Century Problem with a 19th Century Solution
The difficulty of executing strategy is well-documented and widespread. Research indicates that a significant number of organisations struggle to translate strategy into action. A study found that 67% of well-formulated strategies fail due to poor execution (ClearPoint Strategy). Even when businesses develop robust strategic plans, the majority falter at the implementation stage.
Even more striking is that this problem has endured for decades. Walk into most boardrooms today, and the conversations about execution remain remarkably similar to those held 20 years ago. While management approaches have evolved, many organisations still wrestle with the same fundamental challenge: bridging the gap between strategy and execution.
A problem that is both widespread and persistent suggests deep-seated causes. The solution, therefore, must be equally fundamental. Surprisingly, it is. The answer has existed for a long time. It is relatively simple—almost common sense. Yet, as is often the case, common sense is not the same as common practice.
This naturally leads to another question: If the solution has been around for so long and is easy to understand, why isn’t it widely adopted?
There are two main reasons:
- The legacy of outdated management thinking
20th-century management principles have built barriers to adopting more effective approaches. Even though modern thinkers have challenged these principles, their influence remains embedded in organisational structures. - A lack of a widely accepted alternative
While frameworks such as Agile, Lean, and OKRs have emerged, no single methodology has replaced traditional management practices across the board. Many managers acknowledge the limitations of legacy models but struggle to consistently implement better approaches.
The Legacy of Scientific Management
During the industrial revolution, businesses were structured around factories that operated like machines. Workers were treated as cogs in those machines, and management’s role was to keep everything running smoothly.
In 1911, Frederick Winslow Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific Management formalised this mindset. His approach was built on three core premises:
- It is possible to know everything needed in advance to plan effectively.
- Planners and doers should be separate.
- There is one correct way to perform a task.
Taylor’s principles revolutionised efficiency in repetitive, mechanical tasks. By studying physical labour in minute detail—such as the optimal way to move pig iron onto railcars—he developed systems that dramatically improved productivity. Today, many of these tasks are automated or standardised in software.
However, businesses also require activities that involve judgement, creativity, and adaptation—areas where Taylor’s assumptions break down. The more dynamic the environment, the less useful rigid, top-down control becomes.
Taylorism has faced substantial criticism in modern management. One of the major critiques is that Taylorism dehumanises workers by treating them as components of a machine, focusing solely on efficiency at the expense of autonomy and satisfaction (Runn.io). This approach leads to disengagement and lack of motivation—factors that are counterproductive in today’s dynamic work environments.
Additionally, Taylorist structures are often ill-suited to complex modern organisations. The emphasis on standardisation and control can stifle innovation and responsiveness, both of which are critical in fast-paced markets. Despite the rejection of Taylorist ideas in theory, some businesses inadvertently reinforce them through rigid performance management systems, compliance pressures, and hierarchical planning.
The 19th Century Solution: Leadership Based on Alignment and Autonomy
This brings us to the second reason strategy execution remains such a challenge: organisations lack a widely adopted set of management disciplines suited to today’s complex and unpredictable environment.
However, a highly effective alternative has existed for over a century—long before Taylor’s mechanistic model took hold.
Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke, a 19th-century Prussian general, faced a challenge remarkably similar to modern leadership: how to execute strategy in a fast-changing, unpredictable environment. He recognised that traditional, top-down control fails when agility is required. Instead, he developed a leadership philosophy based on alignment and autonomy.
Von Moltke’s insight was simple yet profound: The more alignment you create, the more autonomy you can grant. This shifts execution away from reliance on an exceptional leader and instead builds an organisation capable of intelligent, adaptive decision-making at all levels.
Many modern management frameworks, including Agile and decentralised decision-making models, share parallels with von Moltke’s approach. However, despite their proven effectiveness, many organisations struggle to integrate these principles into their core operating models.
Rather than relying on rigid control structures, the most effective organisations today behave more like adaptive systems. They empower individuals with clear intent, ensuring that teams have both the context and the authority to act decisively in uncertain environments.
The solution has always been there. The challenge is adopting it.
