Strategy Thrives on Many Minds. Execution Demands One Leader.
Chess is typically played 1v1. But if you got ten grandmasters to look at a single board in play, I would trust their collective intelligence over any one of them singularly.
Why?
Because together, the grandmasters can better spot the positional nuances that might escape any individual player.
I think this points to a fundamental reality CEOs should understand: Strategy thrives on many minds.
In the business context, this means that bringing together the creative, informed, motivated minds on your team will result in a better strategy for your company than you could come up with on your own. Thus, when it comes to creating strategy, the CEO’s job is to pull in multiple perspectives and know who to listen to.
Single-minded military strategy
Military history gives us plenty of examples of this principle being violated.
Here is one of the most dramatic: Throughout World War II, Hitler repeatedly insisted on being the only creator of military strategy. While this was, obviously, not the worst of his personal failings, it nonetheless led to utter failure. His military advisors repeatedly warned against opening a second front by invading the Soviet Union while still fighting Britain, Hitler dismissed their concerns and proceeded with Operation Barbarossa anyway.
Later, against the advice of his field commanders who understood Moscow's strategic importance as the nerve center for rail transport and troop movement, Hitler diverted forces south toward Ukraine, missing the opportunity to deliver a knockout blow to the Soviet war effort.
It was a clear pattern. Hitler refused to listen to any general who disagreed with his strategy.
Roman general Marcus Licinius Crassus did something similar at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC. Ignoring the advice of allies and advisers, Crassus marched 40,000 Roman legionaries into the desert where they were utterly crushed by the Parthian cavalry. It’s one of the most famous Roman defeats in history.
Many minds, stronger strategy
Superior strategy emerges from the collision of diverse perspectives and the systematic challenging of assumptions. When you have the right people in the room—i.e., those with relevant expertise, divergent vantage points, the courage to speak truth to power, and a sense of creativity—the resulting strategy will invariably be more robust than what the leader could come up with on their own.
Strategy thrives when it's subjected to intellectual combat, when assumptions are challenged, when potential failures are explored, and when the collective intelligence of the organization is properly channeled.
So far, so good. We now know the CEO should build a brain trust as they lead the strategy-formation process.
But that’s only half the story.
Once you have a strategy, the team must execute.
Execution Demands One Leader
Now that the organization's strategic direction is clear, dynamics must shift dramatically. Whereas before the CEO was leading a meeting of minds, now they must shift into the wholly accountable driver of action.
Execution demands singular accountability because it requires thousands of coordinated decisions, clear prioritization when resources are constrained, and the ability to remove obstacles quickly as they arise. There must be one person who serves as the central facilitator of alignment and who maintains a holistic view of the entire execution system. While strategy formation benefits from distributed intellectual ownership across multiple minds, execution requires someone who can see how all the pieces fit together and orchestrate the complex choreography of organizational action.
Consider two critical aspects of this challenge:
Decision velocity and clarity: During execution, organizations face countless tactical decisions that collectively determine strategic success. Which projects get funded first? How do we respond to competitive moves? What do we do when priorities conflict? These decisions require speed and consistency, which are best achieved through clear hierarchical accountability rather than consensus-building. Many CEOs try to build consensus for every decision, but it’s ultimately a fool’s errand and often driven by their own insecurity.
Accountability and course correction: When execution sputters out, someone must diagnose the problem and drive the solution. This requires the authority to reassign resources, change personnel, alter timelines, or even revisit strategic assumptions. Committees can't fire underperforming teams or make tough resource allocation decisions with the speed execution demands.
The CEO's role during execution is analogous to a conductor leading an orchestra. The music (strategy) has been written, but imagine if there were three conductors. It would be a cacophonous disaster!
Putting This Balance into Practice
The CEO's primary job is managing the transition between collective strategy formation and singular execution accountability. Each phase requires different systems and behaviors.
Multiple Minds: Strategy Formation
Effective strategy formation draws on diverse input sources and perspectives:
Board engagement: Regular strategic discussions with board members who bring industry experience and outside perspective
Executive team offsites: Quarterly intensive strategy sessions where the CEO creates psychological safety for dissenting views and ensures diverse perspectives challenge core assumptions
External intelligence: Reading widely, listening to competitors at industry events, and gathering insights from vendors and partners who see market trends across multiple companies
The CEO's role here is facilitative leadership, asking probing questions, surfacing buried concerns, and ensuring quieter voices are heard. The goal is rigorous stress-testing of strategic assumptions before committing resources to execution.
Single Leader: Execution
But once strategic direction is set, the CEO shifts into execution mode with singular accountability:
Translating strategy into measurable goals: Breaking down strategic direction into specific company objectives for the quarter, then cascading these down through the organization with clear accountability at each level
Weekly operations reviews: Maintaining accountability on quarterly goals, identifying blockers, and ensuring proper resource allocation. Using frameworks like Likelihood and Quality assessments for each goal creates a systematic way to identify execution risks before they become crises
Holistic system oversight: The CEO is the only person with a complete view of how all organizational pieces fit together during execution. When bottlenecks emerge, they must make immediate decisions about resource reallocation or personnel changes
Important note: This “many minds” / “single leader” divide does not mean that strategy and execution are not entwined with each other. Sometimes the strategy needs to shift based on data you get during execution. And each bit of execution needs to reflect the larger strategy.
The best CEOs excel at both sides of this equation. They create environments where strategy benefits from collective wisdom while ensuring execution benefits from singular accountability.
Which side do you think you’re stronger in?
Do you suffer from many-minded execution or single-minded strategy?
If you’re a CEO and would like to talk this over, schedule a free advisory session with me here.