Boards Don’t Execute. They Enable Execution
What strategic repositioning really requires and where it fails
As a board member, you must constantly question the company's current position and be prepared to rethink what comes next. That next step can take many forms: geographic expansion, acquisitions, diversification, or divestment when parts of the portfolio no longer fit the strategic direction.
Management proposes. The board decides whether the proposal is sound.
But a board cannot do that responsibly without a deep understanding of the business. Not an abstract familiarity. A level of understanding that allows you to challenge assumptions, see what is missing, and distinguish ambition from feasibility.
This starts with the external environment.
Boards need a clear view of the competitive landscape and of the transformations happening outside the company. The pace of change is increasing, as technological disruption, shifting customer expectations, supply chain restructuring, and regulatory pressure are no longer episodic. They are constant. If a board does not understand these forces, it cannot judge whether management is moving early enough or moving in the wrong direction.
Execution is a management responsibility. Oversight is not.
The board’s role is to supervise the transition: does it move at the agreed pace, and does it deliver the required outcomes? That supervision, in turn, depends on understanding not only the operating model and strategy, but also culture, internal constraints, and how the organization actually absorbs change.
Every organization has inertia. The bigger the organization, the bigger the inertia.
Strategic repositioning often fails not because the strategy is wrong, but because the organization cannot move as fast as the plan assumes. Designing a transformation is the easy part. You can define purpose, outcome, and targets on paper. What is harder is factoring in the reality that people, structures, and behaviors do not change at that speed.
Culture matters here, and so does context.
How quickly an organization can adapt is influenced by cultural expectations and by social structures in the region where it operates. Europe, the US, and many Asian markets do not deal with transformation in the same way. The same pace, the same communication style, and the same leadership approach will not produce the same results. Boards that treat change as universally “deployable” underestimate execution risk.
This is where narrative becomes a strategic tool.
Transformation needs an anchor: “This is where we are today, and this is where we are going.” When change is triggered by visible external forces, the narrative is easier. People see what is happening around them. The sense of urgency is shared.
The more challenging case is when change is triggered early because the board and management detect disruption before the organization sees it.
This is the moment where leaders earn their credibility. Early moves create advantage, but they also create resistance. When the need for change is not yet obvious to most of the organization, communication becomes central. You are asking people to act on a future they do not yet experience. Without a disciplined narrative, resistance will be higher, and alignment will be slower.
External narrative is different from internal narrative.
Internally, you must make the future legible without everyone having to see it yet. Externally, you do not disclose your competitive advantage unless there is a deliberate reason to do so. The board should expect different messaging strategies for employees, customers, partners, and markets aligned in direction, but different in content.
Competitive advantage still favors first movers.
Organizations that sense the need for transformation early and move efficiently gain an advantage. At the same time, there are transitions where industry-wide movement matters. When the whole sector shifts, customers adopt faster, and scale arrives earlier, supporting the investment required for change. The transition from conventional lighting to LED is a good illustration: when the industry moves together, the market reaches critical mass sooner. The most effective movers still win, but the ecosystem reduces adoption friction.
A strategic repositioning example outside the corporate setting makes the point even clearer.
During my years as President of Orgalim, the European association representing the technology manufacturing industry, the COVID period created severe disruption, especially through long and vulnerable supply chains. Orgalim’s challenge was not a lack of activity. It was fragmentation: many sectors, many priorities, many policy interests across Europe.
Repositioning required a unifying narrative.
We anchored the strategy around advanced manufacturing, the premise that Europe can keep manufacturing only if it becomes globally competitive at a higher level of digitization, automation, and industrial capability. Industry 4.0 has existed as a concept for years, but for many small and mid-sized companies, it is still not a reality. The repositioning, therefore, focused on what matters strategically: keeping manufacturing in Europe by moving from traditional to advanced manufacturing at scale.
That is what strategic repositioning looks like in practice:
A clear understanding of external disruption
A realistic view of internal inertia
A narrative that creates alignment
And the governance discipline to supervise progress without confusing oversight with execution
Boards do not execute transformations. But they decide whether the organization is prepared and whether management has a plan that can survive contact with reality.
Rada Rodriguez