When a transformation fails, its defenders blame the implementation and never the strategy, so the failure stops counting as evidence and anyone urging a rethink is cast as an improper implementer.
An example
Eighteen months into a store-format overhaul at a home improvement retailer, same-store sales in the converted stores were down four percent against flat sales in the old format. The chief strategy officer and the consulting firm that designed the format presented the post-mortem to the executive committee. Every finding concerned execution: store managers who had not followed the planogram, a training program rolled out late, regional directors who "did not fully commit." A regional director from the Southeast, whose stores had followed the planogram to the inch and still lost traffic, asked what result would have shown the format itself was wrong. The chief strategy officer answered that a properly executed store had never failed. The committee approved conversion of eighty more stores, along with a new compliance audit for store managers.
Why it works
Staying the course becomes the easy path: no one has to disown a past decision, revisit the board's approval, or ask for consulting fees back. The failure, which would normally argue for changing direction, loses its value as evidence once proper implementation is redefined after the fact. Advocating revision now means joining the class of improper implementers, so the alternative carries a reputational price. The defense holds where the criteria for proper implementation are vague enough to rewrite, where real execution gaps exist to point at, where the audience has little appetite for reopening old decisions, and where the strategy's defenders still hold power.
The thinking behind it
Leon Festinger Festinger's A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957) holds that two cognitions that do not fit, such as having backed a strategy and seeing it fail, produce discomfort, and the easiest relief is often to change a belief to fit what one has already done. Blaming execution keeps the belief in the strategy intact. The disabling question, what result would have shown the strategy was wrong, blocks that route to relief.
Barry M. Staw In Knee-Deep in the Big Muddy: A Study of Escalating Commitment to a Chosen Course of Action (1976), Staw found that people personally responsible for a failing course of action committed the most additional money to it, which he interpreted as self-justification. The sponsors who approved the store format are the ones approving eighty more stores. His finding is why the defense asks for a post-mortem run by someone with no stake in the original decision.
Hal R. Arkes Arkes and Blumer's The Psychology of Sunk Cost (1985) describes the sunk cost effect, a greater tendency to continue an endeavor once money, effort, or time has been invested, which the authors trace partly to a wish not to appear wasteful. Consulting fees, converted stores, and a board approval already spent make abandoning the format feel like admitting waste. A stopping test agreed before launch lets the company stop by a rule set in advance.
Warning signs
Post-mortems name only execution gaps: training, compliance, commitment, change management. The standard for proper implementation is described loosely and shifts after results arrive. No one can say what result would have shown the strategy was wrong. Units that executed faithfully and still failed are left out of the analysis, and people who propose revising the strategy are asked about their own commitment.
How to defend yourself
Ask the disabling question in the meeting where the post-mortem is presented: what implementation result would have counted as evidence that the strategy was wrong? If no one can answer, every possible failure could have been blamed on execution, and the room can see it.
- Bring the cases that break the story: units that followed the design faithfully and still failed, with their compliance records.
- Ask for an independent post-mortem, run by someone with no stake in the strategy or the consulting work, covering strategic assumptions as well as execution.
- Separate your criticism from the people being blamed. Arguing that the store managers did fine invites a debate about them; arguing that the format's traffic assumption failed keeps the discussion on the strategy.
For the next initiative, get the test on the record before it starts: the result that would mean stopping, written into the approval.
How a leader shuts it down
Approve no major strategy without a written test of what result would show it is wrong, set before launch and owned by someone other than the sponsor. Commission post-mortems from a neutral party, and require them to address the strategy's assumptions as well as its execution.