There's the plan your team built: the one with a clear three-year vision, sequenced priorities, and buy-in from the people who have to execute it.
And then there's the other plan. The one that shows up after a board meeting, when the energy is high. That plan isn't written down anywhere. It's a collection of urgencies — a new competitive threat to neutralize, an acquisition to explore, a market to capture. It lands in your inbox on a Tuesday, like it was always the plan.
I've seen this play out enough to know it's one of the most draining positions a leader can sit in. And it almost always comes from the same root cause: the conditions of the commitment were never actually defined.
First — is it a dream, or is it a directive?
That's the question I've learned to ask before I do anything else. Because there's a real difference between a board that's energized and throwing ideas at the wall — and a board that's genuinely expecting action.
Here's what I did when this happened to me. The board asked great questions, got curious, and floated some ambitious ideas. I let them talk. Then, the next meeting, I came back with the data, the details, and — most importantly — what it would actually take.
Separate the ideas from the commitments. Not everything floated in a high-energy room is a directive. Go back through what was said and sort it: what are they genuinely expecting action on vs. what were they thinking out loud? The list is usually shorter than it felt in the room.
Then map what it would actually take. For anything that does require action, come back with honest answers to the hard questions. What has to be true first for this to work? What's already in flight that it bumps? What breaks if you try to run both at once?
They were almost surprised. I think a few of them had forgotten the ideas they'd floated. But I could tell it landed. It showed I was listening, I took them seriously, and I was capable of translating their energy into something real.
This isn't a board problem. It's an alignment gap.
The board isn't usually wrong to want more. The ambition is often real and right. Markets shift. Competitors become vulnerable. Some windows close. I work with growth companies that are leaving real opportunity on the table because they're moving too cautiously.
But wanting more and being able to absorb more are two different conversations. I see this same dynamic play out on the agency side constantly. A client wants to quadruple their leads. That may be entirely possible. But the commitment has conditions: we'll need this budget, this turnaround time, this level of engagement from your sales team. Without that clarity, we're just two parties agreeing to a number and hoping for the best. Strategic alignment inside a company is no different.
Signs you're running two plans
- Your team is executing confidently on a roadmap you're no longer sure is the real one
- You're making resourcing decisions in your head that you haven't surfaced to anyone
- Initiatives keep almost getting started but never fully launching
- You're translating between what the board wants and what your team can hear — constantly
- You've stopped pushing back in board meetings because it feels easier to figure it out later
If more than two of those are true, the gap is already costing you. It's time to make a change.
What to do when you're holding both plans
Stop carrying it alone. The longer you manage the gap internally, the bigger it gets — and the more you start questioning yourself instead of questioning the clarity of the mandate. Bring it into the room.
"Here's what I can commit to. Here's the condition under which I could commit to more."
The goal is to make sure there's only one plan — and that everyone who needs to execute it actually signed up for the same thing.
Ready to get back to one plan?
If you're the person translating between what the board wants and what your team can hear, that's a hard place to sit. We've helped a lot of companies find their way back to one clear strategy — and we'd be glad to think through yours.
