Boards Are Becoming Less Patient With Execution Drift

What recent disclosures, governance signals, and executive conversations reveal about how strategy accountability is changing

For a long time, execution drift lived in an uncomfortable grey zone. Projects weren’t failing outright. Dashboards were mostly green. Milestones slipped, but explanations sounded reasonable.

So boards tolerated it. That tolerance is eroding. Over the past few months, a subtle but consistent shift has been showing up across board commentary, earnings disclosures, and governance conversations: execution drift is being treated less as an operational nuisance and more as a risk that requires intervention.

1. The Context Has Shifted, and So Have Expectations

Over the last few years, boards were operating in an environment defined by disruption.

Supply chains were unstable. Labour markets were tight. Inflation was volatile. Capital was repriced rapidly.

In that context, slow or uneven execution was often interpreted generously. Conditions were genuinely hard, and uncertainty was high.

That backdrop is changing. Growth is uneven but more predictable. Labour pressure has eased in parts of the economy. Capital discipline is clearer.

None of this means conditions are easy. But it does mean they are no longer a sufficient explanation for persistent drift.

As conditions stabilise, boards are recalibrating what they consider acceptable.

2. Execution Is Being Framed as a Governance Issue, Not an Operational One

One of the clearest signals is how execution is now discussed. Instead of being framed primarily as a delivery challenge, execution is increasingly being linked to:

• capital allocation discipline

• enterprise risk

• management credibility

• operating model design
  

This shift is most visible in the nature of the questions boards are now asking. Rather than focusing solely on whether initiatives are technically on track, discussions are increasingly centred on why progress has stalled, which decisions remain unresolved, what actions are being taken to remove blockers, and why issues were not escalated earlier. When execution is framed this way, drift becomes much harder to explain or defer. It is no longer treated as a matter of pace, but as a question of control.

3. “Green but Slow” Is Losing Its Protective Power

Traditional reporting has often masked drift. Initiatives stayed green because milestones were technically met, even as momentum faded. Risks were acknowledged, but rarely acted on. Decisions were deferred without consequence.

Boards are becoming more sensitive to this pattern. Execution research has long shown that many initiatives appear “on track” for extended periods before ultimately failing or being quietly deprioritised. What’s changing now is the willingness to wait.

Boards are asking for earlier signals. They want to see friction, not reassurance. They want to know what is stuck, not just what is complete. This doesn’t mean boards are micromanaging execution. It means they are less comfortable being surprised later.

4. Why This Matters for Strategy Leaders

For CSOs and senior strategy leaders, this shift has practical consequences. Execution drift used to be something that could be managed quietly within the organisation, absorbed over time, or resolved through informal workarounds. That’s becoming harder. When boards treat execution as a governance concern, they expect:

• clearer ownership

• faster escalation

• visible decision-making

• explicit trade-offs
  

They also expect strategy leaders to surface issues early, even when they’re uncomfortable.

In this environment, silence itself starts to look like a risk.

5. The Real Change Is About Intervention Timing

What’s changing most is not the standard of execution, but the timing of intervention.

Boards are less willing to wait for formal failure before stepping in. They want to understand whether something is still executable while there’s time to do something about it.

That pushes organisations toward:

• shorter feedback loops

• earlier decision points

• clearer kill or pivot moments
  

Execution discipline is moving upstream.

What This Means Going Forward

This isn’t a crackdown. It’s a recalibration. Boards aren’t expecting perfection. But they are expecting visibility, responsiveness, and control. For strategy leaders, the implication is straightforward, if uncomfortable: Execution drift is no longer something you can manage quietly and explain later. It’s something boards increasingly expect to see early — and act on.