Process quality drives strategic success 6x more than analysis
Today's leaders face an unprecedented mix of complex challenges: supply chain volatility reshaping global trade, regulatory uncertainty around AI and data privacy, geopolitical complexity affecting everything from cybersecurity to talent access, and strategic ambiguity about which emerging technologies will truly transform their industries.
In this VUCA environment (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity), traditional analytical approaches hit a fundamental limitation that strategy expert Roger Martin identified: "overconfidence can be created by analyzing the past," yet "all important decisions involve bets about a world that may not be." Data is inherently backward-looking when leaders must make their best guesses about an uncertain future. So what matters more than data when creating strategy?
Here's what most leaders miss: how you make decisions matters far more than how much analysis you do. McKinsey research on 1,048 major decisions – investments in new products, M&A decisions, and large capital expenditures – found that strategic process quality outweighs analytical depth by a 6-to-1 ratio in predicting successful execution.
Sources: What drives strategic success: Dan Lovallo and Olivier Sibony, "The case for behavioral strategy," McKinsey Quarterly, March 2010. Based on analysis of 1,048 major strategic decisions over five years, including new product investments, M&A decisions, and large capital expenditures. Market leaders vs. laggards: BTS Research Report, "Mindsets: Gaining Buy-in to Strategy," 2015. Based on survey of 228 business leaders across North America, Asia-Pacific, and Europe, with respondents grouped by relative profitability performance versus industry peers. Roger Martin insights: "Design Thinking," an interview with Roger Martin by Jim Euchner, Conversations.
This finding reveals a harsh reality about executive confidence in strategic decisions. Only 28% of executives surveyed believed the quality of strategic decisions at their companies was generally good, while 60% thought good and bad decisions were about equally frequent. The root cause isn't lack of data or expertise – it's flawed processes that fail to counteract cognitive biases and encourage meaningful participation from diverse stakeholders.
The keys to superior process: inclusive participation, structured approaches, and psychological safety. This collaborative approach drives employee commitment, which strongly correlates with profitability. Market-leading companies achieve 3 times higher frontline manager commitment to strategy than laggards – 67% versus 22% – because they invest in building genuine organizational buy-in rather than relying on top-down mandates.
The lesson: focus on collaborative processes that build genuine organizational buy-in rather than top-down, data-heavy approaches that fail to engage employees who ultimately execute the strategy. When managers work directly with employees explaining strategy and establishing clear expectations, 80% can explain how strategy relates to their daily decisions – compared to just 44% when strategy is simply forwarded through communications. The difference isn't in the quality of the strategy itself, but in the quality of the process used to develop and communicate it.
About the author
Mark McCarvill is the Founder and Lead Facilitator at Mind Meeting Group, a strategy consulting firm based outside Vancouver, Canada. Mind Meeting Group helps business, government, and non-profit leaders align departments and mobilize teams through collaborative workshops that deliver execution-ready strategies.