Blog

Most people in an organisation don’t experience governance as a system.They experience their slice of it: a project SteerCo, a program board, a portfolio checkpoint, a functional leadership forum.While each forum can be well run in isolation, execution often breaks in the seams between them, where dependencies, trade-offs, and decision pathways cross boundaries.This came through strongly in my research with senior leaders. Many described how limited their visibility was beyond their own forums, and how the pain shows up later as rework, slow decisions, and escalations that feel unavoidable.That’s the challenge of multi-layered governance: not the quality of any one forum, but whether the layers connect.That’s what interlocks solve.Interlocks aren’t extra meetings. They’re the minimum touchpoints and rules that connect the governance system, surfacing cross-functional dependencies and trade-offs early and keeping them visible as work moves, so leaders can steer with clarity, not surprise.In practice, interlocks operate across two levels: - Governance level: where leaders surface and route enterprise dependencies, priorities, and trade-offs, set decision boundaries, and track what must be resolved outside the forum. - Delivery level: teams solving sequencing, capacity and dependency tensions, then elevating only what needs enterprise judgement.And when interlocks are working, you’ll see three shifts: 1. Dependencies surface early: while you still have options to resequence, reassign, or make a call. 2. Trade-offs are explicit: because if they’re not named, they still happen late and expensively. 3. Escalation is deliberate: teams resolve what they can at the lowest responsible level, and SteerCo is only involved in true enterprise calls, not day-to-day dependency friction.In one organisation I worked in, we tackled interlocks at two levels: a cross-functional leadership forum to prioritise the roadmap and quarterly outcomes, and manage interlocks across functions; and a delivery-level big room planning where teams mapped dependencies, flagged decision points, set delivery priorities, and exposed constraints early.This approach saw those dependencies and risks owned, translated into clear actions and commitments, and elevated into project governance reporting, giving steering committees visibility of execution risk across the roadmap, not just inside individual projects.The impact wasn’t “more alignment.” It was faster execution: fewer surprises, fewer late escalations, and cleaner decisions because leaders could see what was being managed between the forums.Every forum can be well run and the system still fails, because nobody owns the seams between them. Designing the connective tissue, and keeping it light enough that people actually use it, is part of what <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/execution" href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/execution">Execution </a>sets up.This is part of lever 4 (Governance &amp; Decision Rights) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model. <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model">See the full framework →</a>Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about">Rebecca Reti</a>, strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.There's more on this in the carousel, including how to check whether your governance system is managing its interlocks, and design moves that build rhythm without meeting bloat. <a data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_element-4-interlocks-activity-7424595722458677248-0Q-i" href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_element-4-interlocks-activity-7424595722458677248-0Q-i">See the carousel on LinkedIn →</a>

Why programmes drift apart, and what interlocks fix

Young successful businessman working on laptop inside office, man in light shirt smiling contentedly, typing on laptop keyboard at workplace

If your governance pack is green, are you actually seeing reality?Once the machine is running, leaders need line of sight to govern effectively. Not more updates, but enough clarity and trust in the integrity of that information to inform their decisions, so they can make good calls early, before the program or project drifts.Line of sight means leaders can see:&nbsp; PACE: What decisions are needed next, and what's slowing momentum;&nbsp; RISK: What's at risk, and if its being managed;&nbsp; VALUE: What trade-offs are being made and if its compromising outcomes; and, TRUTH: Whether what they're hearing reflects reality.That line of sight doesn’t magically appear in a pack.Leaders create it through three mechanisms: 1. Decision-grade reporting that surfaces evidence, trade-offs, and unknowns, not just milestones 2. Forums designed to decide, where the agenda is built around the few calls that protect line of sight 3. Direct connection to reality, leaders stepping outside the pack to validate assumptions with delivery leads and business owners, to hear weak signals earlyWhen those mechanisms are weak, governance can look green while in reality the project is fragile.Early in my career, I saw the impact of this on an Enterprise CRM project. The sponsor was engaged and well-intentioned, but the governance system created a single point of truth, updates flowed mainly through the project manager, and the SteerCo wasn’t routinely hearing from the business owner or the leads closest to the impacted processes. On paper, progress looked fine. The project stayed green right up until UAT.What wasn’t surfaced was lack of business engagement up front, meaning requirements weren’t locked down, and therefore core end-to-end processes hadn’t been properly understood or validated. Because that reality didn't effectively travel up through the governance mechanisms, it didn’t show up as a clear risk, rather, it showed up later as defects.By the time UAT started, it wasn’t a few bugs. It was fundamental workflow issues. The program went red fast, not because people weren’t working hard, but because leaders didn’t have enough line of sight early enough to challenge assumptions and course-correct.Governance that reports is easy to build. Governance that decides, and that surfaces bad news early enough to act on, has to be designed that way from the start. That's part of what <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/execution" href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/execution">Execution </a>sets up.The practical shift is this: use governance to create line of sight, so decisions are informed and land with confidence.A simple place to start is to insist that any decision brought to a forum is decision-ready: clear recommendation, options, trade-offs, unknowns, and what would change the call.This is part of lever 4 (Governance &amp; Decision Rights) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model. <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model">See the full framework →</a>Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about">Rebecca Reti</a>, strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.There's more on this in the carousel, with practical ways to build line of sight into your governance system. <a data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_element-3-governance-line-of-sight-activity-7422375420966375424-0Rl_" href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_element-3-governance-line-of-sight-activity-7422375420966375424-0Rl_">See the carousel on LinkedIn →</a>

How do leaders see whether strategy is really moving?

Mockup banner, laptop and teamwork of business people, web designer and group working on online website design. Manager, advertising grid space or team cooperation on SEO project, research or startup

In your organisation, what actually determines where and how execution decisions get made?Decision-making is the wiring that runs through strategy execution. It only works when you've deliberately designed where decisions sit and who owns the call.Yet, most organisations don't actively define, communicate or monitor decision-making. Then they wonder why execution slows.When you don't intentionally design the decision-making system, the organisation improvises. Teams don't just slow down; they start guessing, escalating, and reworking decisions that should have been clean. Decisions drift to the safest place, the biggest meeting, or the most senior person.That's when pace collapses.I saw this on a major enterprise systems programme.The organisation valued collaboration, so they ran a weekly SteerCo with most of the executive team, regularly pulling Tier 3 leaders into the room. It looked robust. It also trained the organisation to escalate.They hadn't agreed on key decisions up front, collectively or across functions, so everything defaulted to SteerCo. Even decisions that Tier 3 leaders were fully capable of making got pulled upward, then dissected and re-litigated in the room.People with the authority and context to make design calls stopped making them. Decisions travelled up to leaders who cared and wanted to help, but didn't live in the details. Leaders hesitated, teams wrote bigger packs, and the programme slowed.The hidden cost wasn't just meeting time. Teams spent more time explaining and justifying decisions than designing and delivering. Ownership blurred, decision velocity dropped, trust eroded.Escalation isn't a culture problem. It's what people do when they aren't certain they're allowed to decide. Naming who owns what, and who decides at which level, is part of what <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/operating-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/operating-model">Operating Model</a> sets up.The design principle is straightforward: some decisions need a forum where leaders trade off cross-functional impacts. Others need a single owner with the remit and expertise to make the call. This programme had lost that distinction.This is why decision rights aren't a bolt-on. It's a critical part of the execution system, and it needs to be designed.It turns governance from a set of meetings into a system that actually executes. Ownership either sharpens here, or it disappears as when nobody can point to the decision-maker, execution can't move.This is part of lever 4 (Governance &amp; Decision Rights) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model. <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model">See the full framework →</a>Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about">Rebecca Reti,</a> strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.There's a practical decision map in the carousel, covering what decisions matter, where they should sit, and how to keep escalation predictable rather than political. <a data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_decision-rights-and-accountability-activity-7419498978125357057-RgI6" href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_decision-rights-and-accountability-activity-7419498978125357057-RgI6">See the carousel on LinkedIn →</a>

Who actually decides? Why decision rights slow you down

Team building. Free vacancy. Human resources. Personnel management. Expansion and staffing. Selection of candidates for an effective working group. Work skills and abilities. Labor exchange.

Governance Should Accelerate Strategy Execution.And at the heart of this lever sits one critical element: Governance Architecture, the structural backbone that determines whether your strategy accelerates… or gets stuck.I see the same pattern in almost every organisation I work with.Leaders spend their days in back-to-back meetings, decisions take too long, priorities conflict across the business, and teams operate with half the context they need.We can be quick to assume the issue is about people; however, I often see it's more about the architecture wrapped around them.Most governance systems aren’t designed. They’re accumulated.A forum was added when a delivery risk is deemed high.Another was created to improve visibility.A working group was formed to fix a gap.Before long, you have a collection of forums that feel important individually, but don’t create coherence collectively.This mismatch means Execution starts to drag long before anyone notices.Here’s what I’ve seen: - When governance isn’t engineered, it becomes a constraint. - Meetings turn into reporting sessions. - Decisions are made in isolation and land at the wrong level. - Information becomes fragmented. - Issues surface too late. - Teams escalate too much or not enough. - Leaders act without seeing the whole system.Organisations that do it well intentionally design governance. They’re clear about which forums exist, and why; how each forum connects up and down the chain; which decisions sit where; what pace is required to match the strategy; where risk is managed; how information flows so staff can act with confidence; and finally, they ensure their leaders have the skills to govern well.When the governance architecture enables the Strategy, and leaders know how to use it, something important happens: execution speeds up without people working harder.The system does the lifting.None of that is a people problem. It's what happens when the structure grew rather than got built. Deciding which forums exist, which decisions sit where, and who owns the call is part of what <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/operating-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/operating-model">Operating Model</a> sets up.This is part of lever 4 (Governance &amp; Decision Rights) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model. <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model">See the full framework →</a>Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about">Rebecca Reti</a>, strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.There's more on this in the carousel, with practical ways to redesign governance so it improves clarity, strengthens alignment and accelerates execution rather than slowing it down. <a data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_governance-architecture-activity-7416614962359541761-CLe0?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAAhmYsQBKppHDyfPTxqHXXgP5MmXRjB7WJs" href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_governance-architecture-activity-7416614962359541761-CLe0?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAAhmYsQBKppHDyfPTxqHXXgP5MmXRjB7WJs" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">See the carousel on LinkedIn →</a>

Why your governance system slows execution down

<h3>Strategy Execution by Design Series Lever 3: Execution Management System Element 5: Learning Infrastructure</h3>
Sit with this a moment.... what's moving faster in your organisation, the pace of change, or the pace of learning?
Over the past few years, I've continued to see the same pattern. 
Leadership teams are reviewing and refining how they execute, investing in delivery capabilities, uplifting governance frameworks, and tightening processes. 
Yet execution performance still isn't moving the needle to where they want it to.
When I interviewed senior executives for my eMBA research, something interesting emerged. 
Everyone talked about similar success factors for execution. But those actually seeing results? They prioritised something the others didn't. 
They invested in systems that helped them learn fast enough to keep up.
Steven Bartlett talks about rewarding failure because it accelerates learning. Most organisations don't have that cultural muscle. And without it, execution quietly slows down.
When I say learning architecture or system, I'm not talking about training programs or workshops. I'm talking about the everyday mechanisms that help teams reflect, challenge their assumptions, test hypotheses, and adjust in light of reality:
The retros. 
The insight-sharing. 
The small experiments.   The space for truth-telling.
When those loops are built into the execution system, performance improves. Teams course-correct earlier. Leaders spot issues sooner. The organisation moves with more clarity and confidence.
The high performers I studied? They treated learning as a performance system rather than an HR initiative. They designed learning loops into how they planned, led, governed, and delivered.
This connects directly to what we explored under Leadership &amp; Trust. You can't build high performance without leaders who create space for curiosity, honesty, and shared insight.
In organisations that executed well, learning was structured, continuous, fast, and embedded, not left to chance.
The impact showed up everywhere: sharper decisions, less rework, earlier corrections, and stronger strategic integrity.
So here's my question for you: Does your organisation have a deliberate learning architecture that converts experience into performance? Or is learning something you hope happens?
If you can't answer with a confident yes, that's probably where execution is starting to slip.
Learning Architecture is the final element of Lever 3: The Execution Management System - the loops, rhythms and mechanisms that help organisations learn faster than the world changes.
<figure id="figure-l4zbaqygwzml4ovszz"><img id="l4zbaqygwzml4ovszz" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" title="Successful smiling latin hispanic young woman using pad computer for business app. Busy executive CEO businesswoman professional holding digital tablet pc device for work in modern office workplace." src="https://cdn.durable.co/getty/214PGnXh3EkecUhGJeZgAuVH0xYtx5JP6JzAoGvD4tJNBLdmWUlWoZvl3chyz94T.jpeg" alt="Successful smiling latin hispanic young woman using pad computer for business app. Busy executive CEO businesswoman professional holding digital tablet pc device for work in modern office workplace." data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" /></figure>
For further ideas on how to improve your learning infrastructure, please refer to: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_learning-infrastructure-activity-7401749510152245248-C3Qk?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAAhmYsQBKppHDyfPTxqHXXgP5MmXRjB7WJs
Written by Rebecca Reti, Strategy &amp; Execution Consultant at Rebecca Reti Consulting.

Wrap up of Lever 3: Execution Management System

Successful smiling latin hispanic young woman using pad computer for business app. Busy executive CEO businesswoman professional holding digital tablet pc device for work in modern office workplace.

Sit with this a moment.... what's moving faster in your organisation, the pace of change, or the pace of learning?Over the past few years, I've continued to see the same pattern.&nbsp;Leadership teams are reviewing and refining how they execute, investing in delivery capabilities, uplifting governance frameworks, and tightening processes.&nbsp;Yet execution performance still isn't moving the needle to where they want it to.When I interviewed senior executives for my eMBA research, something interesting emerged.&nbsp;Everyone talked about similar success factors for execution. But those actually seeing results? They prioritised something the others didn't.&nbsp;They invested in systems that helped them learn fast enough to keep up.Steven Bartlett talks about rewarding failure because it accelerates learning. Most organisations don't have that cultural muscle. And without it, execution quietly slows down.When I say learning architecture or system, I'm not talking about training programs or workshops. I'm talking about the everyday mechanisms that help teams reflect, challenge their assumptions, test hypotheses, and adjust in light of reality:The retros.&nbsp;The insight-sharing.&nbsp;The small experiments. &nbsp; The space for truth-telling.When those loops are built into the execution system, performance improves. Teams course-correct earlier. Leaders spot issues sooner. The organisation moves with more clarity and confidence.The high performers I studied? They treated learning as a performance system rather than an HR initiative. They designed learning loops into how they planned, led, governed, and delivered.This connects directly to what we explored under Leadership &amp; Trust. You can't build high performance without leaders who create space for curiosity, honesty, and shared insight.In organisations that executed well, learning was structured, continuous, fast, and embedded, not left to chance.The impact showed up everywhere: sharper decisions, less rework, earlier corrections, and stronger strategic integrity.This is the part organisations outsource and then wonder why it leaves with the consultant. Building the loops inside your own teams, so the capability stays when the programme ends, is what <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/training" href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/training">Training </a>is for.So here's my question for you: Does your organisation have a deliberate learning architecture that converts experience into performance? Or is learning something you hope happens?If you can't answer with a confident yes, that's probably where execution is starting to slip.This is part of lever 3 (Execution Management System) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model.&nbsp;See the full framework →Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about">Rebecca Reti</a>, strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.There's more on this in the carousel, with practical ways to build learning loops into your execution system. <a data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_learning-infrastructure-activity-7401749510152245248-C3Qk" href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_learning-infrastructure-activity-7401749510152245248-C3Qk">See the carousel on LinkedIn →</a>

How to build execution capability that stays

Rebecca Reti Consulting