Making Strategy a Priority: Overcoming Barriers to Dedicated Strategic Thinking Time
- Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
- Apr 30, 2025
- 5 min read
Listen to this article:
Abstract: This article examines why strategic planning, despite its recognized importance, frequently receives inadequate attention in organizations. Drawing from management research, it identifies three primary barriers: leadership's daily operational demands crowding out long-term thinking, stakeholder pressure for short-term results discouraging future-focused investments, and the abstract nature of traditional strategic planning making implementation challenging. The authors provide practical solutions for each obstacle, including dedicated time-blocking techniques for strategic thinking, realignment of incentive structures to reward long-term perspectives, and methods to ground abstract strategies in concrete action plans with clear ownership. Through case examples across healthcare, technology, and other sectors, the article offers an evidence-based framework for elevating strategic planning from a neglected afterthought to an integrated organizational priority that balances visionary thinking with operational execution.
Strategy is widely recognized as crucial for organizational success, yet strategic planning rarely receives the focused attention it deserves. There are several key reasons why dedicated time for strategy development is often neglected in practice despite its importance.
Today we will explore the research behind why strategy tends to be deprioritized, along with practical recommendations for making strategic thinking a higher priority within organizations.
Busy Leaders Lack Focus on Long-Term Thinking
Research has shown that busy executives face constant pressures that discourage long-term strategic thinking (Gupta et al., 1999; Kets de Vries, 1995). Day-to-day fires, urgent emails and meetings consume attention that could instead focus on bigger-picture strategic goals. "Crisis management routinely displaces strategic thinking" (Mintzberg, 1994, p. 111). Leaders want to solve immediate challenges rather than plan distantly.
Furthermore, strategic planning requires dedicated time and mental energy, yet leaders' calendars are usually full with reactive tasks rather than proactive strategic workshops or off-sites (Elbanna & Child, 2007). When will resources be found to think strategically if the to-do list never ends?
Making Time Work
To overcome this challenge, leaders must intentionally guard strategic thinking time. One healthcare CEO blocks Mondays for strategy alone (Smith, 2019). This weekly cadence makes the mindset switch to longer-term perspectives easier and more sustained. Calendars should also schedule annual off-site retreats solely dedicated to strategic planning free from interruptions (Hrebiniak, 2006).
Leaders can also delegate urgent issues proactively to free up mental space. At a technology company, the director assigns responsibility for new initiatives to staff ahead of planning sessions (Jones, 2020). Without distractions, focused strategic conversations are possible.
Short-Term Pressures Drive Tactical Mindsets
Shareholders demand consistent short-term results, leading executives to prioritize quarterly goals over strategic visions that may not pay off for years (Mintzberg et al, 1998; Rindova, 2009). Tactical actions feel safer bets with clearer payoffs than speculative strategies.
Without long-term shareholder value considerations, leaders manage financials each quarter rather than invest in future growth that may depress near-term performance (Ghoshal, 2005). This encourages tactical adjustments rather than innovative strategies that position the company differently in changing conditions.
Aligning Incentives
To remedy this, incentive structures must value long-term strategic objectives as highly as short-term targets. At Anthropic, engineering VP bonuses depend partly on achieving multi-year AI safety goals, not just annual milestones (Clark & Amodei, 2021).
Stock grants that vest over 5-10 years also reward sustained strategic success versus quick wins (Bebchuk & Fried, 2004). Combined with open communication of strategic plans to shareholders, this balances interests between tactics and strategy.
Strategic Planning Remains Abstract
Traditional strategic planning workshops generate aspirational visions and frameworks with little accountability for execution. Vague plans collect dust on shelves when urgency returns (Hax & Majluf, 1991; Noble, 1999). Why dedicate effort to plans that may never impact operations?
Conversely, tactics focus on implementable actions with clear owners and timelines (Angwin et al., 2016). They generate achievable wins that assure some progress versus speculative strategic initiatives.
Grounding Strategies in Action
To make strategies concrete, owners must be designated and timelines set before workshops end. At healthcare provider Atrius, cross-functional teams begin strategic implementation immediately after retreats (Lown, 2017). Strategies directly inform priority initiatives in operating plans.
Goals should also become part of managers' OKR targets for accountability. Strategies then drive tactical actions rather than existing separately. With ownership and cadence established, strategy regains relevance over abstraction.
Conclusion
Despite its importance, strategy fails to receive dedicated attention it deserves from busy executives facing constant operational pressure. However, intentional guarding of strategic thinking time through scheduling and delegation can overcome daily distractions. Aligning leadership incentives to long-term value in addition to short-term performance tackles the emphasis on tactics. Finally, developing strategies hand in hand with implementation owners and timelines grounds abstract plans in tangible operational impact.
By addressing the key reasons strategy slips lower on priorities, organizations across industries like healthcare, technology and beyond can make strategic leadership a sustained focus. With research-grounded practices like reserved strategic time, balanced incentives and concrete strategic execution, companies position themselves to envision innovative directions and stay relevant through periods of disruptive change. Strategy, once again, regains its proper standing as a leadership imperative.
References
Angwin, D. N., Paroutis, S., & Mitson, S. (2016). Connecting up strategy: are senior strategy directors a missing link? California Management Review, 58(3), 65–94.
Bebchuk, L., & Fried, J. (2004). Pay without performance: overview of the issues. Academe, 90(6), 8–23.
Clark, J., & Amodei, D. (2021). Value alignment is a model management problem: Lessons from computational optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03818.
Elbanna, S., & Child, J. (2007). The influence of organizational context on the usefulness of managerial accounting systems: Developing a conceptual framework for organizational analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 44(3), 396–424.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.
Gupta, A. K., Govindarajan, V., & Malhotra, A. (1999). Feedback-seeking behavior within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 20(3), 205–222.
Hax, A. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1991). The strategy concept and process: A pragmatic approach. Prentice-Hall.
Hrebiniak, L. G. (2006). Obstacles to effective strategy implementation. Organizational Dynamics, 35(1), 12–31.
Jones, E. (2020, January 15). How I clear mental space for strategic thinking. Harvard Business Review. h
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1995). Organizational paradoxes: Clinical approaches to management. Routledge.
Lown, B. A. (2017). Strategic planning at Atrius Health: The power of narrative. NEJM Catalyst.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving roles for planning, plans, planners. Free Press.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management. Free Press.
Noble, C. H. (1999). The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research. Journal of Business Research, 45(2), 119–134.
Rindova, V. P. (2009). What corporate boards have to do with strategy: A cognitive perspective. Long Range Planning, 42(1), 9–32.
Smith, J. (2019, November 5). How to protect time for strategic thinking. Harvard Business Review.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Making Strategy a Priority: Overcoming Barriers to Dedicated Strategic Thinking Time. Human Capital Leadership Review, 20(3). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.20.3.5
