What distinguishes a strategy on paper from one that is actually lived?
We asked CEOs from very different contexts exactly that. Their answers varied, but they all revolved around one theme: consequence.
🔹 Gunnar Pahnke, CEO of Azerfon: “Execution is directly linked to the bonus payments of all CXOs — over a three-year period. A large share is not paid out annually, but only after the three years have passed.”
🔹 Guillaume Dubrule, CEO of Rexel Germany: “When the financial results are right and the engagement indicators are moving up — then the strategy is not only understood, but lived.”
🔹 Sahil Tapiawala, CEO of Atomionics: “I constantly ask myself: This is what we set out to achieve over the next three, six, nine months — did we get there? If not, why not? And what could I have done differently?”
Three companies, three scales, three continents — and yet the same fundamental question: who takes responsibility for ensuring that the strategy actually lands?
Pahnke’s answer is radically consistent: those who help decide the strategy have a stake in making it happen, because they also carry the financial consequences — deferred, over several years. That creates a different kind of focus than an annual bonus.
Dubrule’s answer reveals that strategy shows up both in numbers and in attitude. Both have to be right. One alone is not enough.
And Tapiawala, who leads a deep-tech startup, asks himself the same questions as the head of a large corporation — only without hierarchy as a protective layer. Because we have more influence over the outcome than we often admit. This mindset of ownership and self-efficacy cannot be delegated.
Commitment does not arise from better slides. It arises where clear consequences are drawn.