Big 5 Strategy Framework

 

Why the Big 5 of Strategy Framework Will Change How We Talk About Leadership

I've spent years watching leadership teams struggle with a problem they couldn't quite name. The strategy was sound. The people were talented. But something wasn't clicking. Execution stalled. Alignment fractured. And no one could articulate why.

Then I came across the Big 5 of the Strategy Competency Framework, and it finally gave language to what I've been observing across technology governance, institutional transformation, and organizational leadership.

The Core Insight

The research behind this framework uncovered a fundamental finding: five universal strategy competencies define how individuals and teams create, shape, and execute strategy. These aren't personality types or work styles. They're observable patterns in how people approach strategic challenges.

The framework operates across three dimensions. First, there's the continuum between thinking and doing—from strategic analysis to strategic execution. Second, there's the tension between stabilizing and transforming—what must endure versus what must evolve. Third, there's adaptability—how quickly we sense, learn, and adjust when conditions change.

Anyone who's led a major technology implementation or institutional transformation recognizes these tensions immediately.

The Five Competencies

Grasp the Present. See reality as it is, not as you wish it to be. This is the competency that prevents the strategic planning document from becoming organizational fiction.

Shape the Future. Envision what's next and chart a bold course. Every institutional transformation starts here—but dies without the other four.

Move the System. Mobilize people and structures to drive change. Strategy documents don't transform organizations. People who can move systems do.

Deliver the Results. Turn plans into outcomes through focus and discipline. I've seen too many brilliant strategies fail because no one owned execution.

Adapt to Change. Stay resilient and responsive to disruption. In volatile environments, this competency often determines survival.

Why This Matters for Leadership Teams

Here's what strikes me most: this framework explains why some teams are cohesive and adaptive while others spin their wheels despite individual talent.

The Big 5 reveals complementary strategic strengths within a group. A team heavy on "Shape the Future" thinkers but light on "Deliver the Results" executors will struggle differently than one with the opposite imbalance. Neither configuration is wrong—but both create predictable dysfunction if you can't see it.

For those of us leading technology transformations, building governance frameworks, or navigating institutional change, this isn't abstract theory. It's a diagnostic tool.

The Strategic Application

I see immediate applications in executive retreats and team alignment sessions—anywhere leaders need shared language for understanding strategic capability. It's equally valuable in coaching relationships, where concrete competencies beat vague development goals every time.

The framework also offers something the strategy world has needed: a way to treat strategic capability as measurable and developable rather than innate talent you either have or don't.

This is more than a model. It's a new lens for understanding how people think and act strategically—and how we can do both better.

---

What patterns have you observed in high-performing versus struggling leadership teams? I'd be curious whether this framework maps to your experience.