Is Your Board Confusing Motion for Progress? Nick Curum’s Seven Signals

In a recent LinkedIn post, Nick Curum challenges business leaders to critically assess whether their board’s actions truly reflect strategic progress or merely the appearance of activity. Curum posits that many organizations mistake “strategic motion” for genuine advancement, leading to a disconnect between stated strategy and tangible results.

Curum introduces a thought-provoking diagnostic question: If one were to disregard the strategy deck and solely examine a board’s decisions, resource allocation, and observable behaviors, could they accurately discern the company’s direction within a short timeframe? He suggests that for most, the answer would be a resounding no.

“Because most boards confuse strategic motion with strategic progress.”

The core of Curum’s argument lies in the distinction between motion and progress. He elaborates that strategy reviews often become showcases of “motion”—filled with updates, new initiatives, and carefully reframed narratives—rather than indicators of forward momentum. “Motion isn’t progress,” Curum asserts. “Progress is directional movement you can recognise without a slide deck.”

The Seven Signals of Strategic Progress

To help boards and leaders identify genuine progress, Curum outlines a diagnostic tool based on seven key signals. He explains that when boards express uncertainty about their strategy’s effectiveness, these signals can provide clarity.

• Directional Clarity: Can the organization’s strategic direction be articulated in a single, concise sentence?
• Leading Signals: Are early indicators of success being monitored, or is the focus solely on lagging results?
• Decision Alignment: Are board decisions consistently moving the organization closer to its goals, or are some decisions inadvertently undermining the strategy?
• Explicit Trade-offs: What initiatives have been deliberately stopped or exited? Where have resources been reallocated from, signifying clear choices?
• Shared Interpretation: Do leaders across the organization interpret and describe strategic progress in a consistent manner, or is there only superficial agreement?
• Time Horizon Discipline: Are long-term strategic objectives being protected from the pressures of short-term demands?
• Irreversibility Test: What actions have been taken that would be significantly painful to undo, indicating a point of commitment and progress?

“If progress is hard to see, strategy is being narrated, not governed.”

Curum emphasizes that the inability to clearly see progress is a critical red flag. He argues that when strategy becomes difficult to track in terms of real-world impact, it often signifies that the process has devolved into mere storytelling rather than effective governance.

The Danger of Narrated Strategy

According to Curum, a strategy that is primarily “narrated” rather than “governed” leads to a lack of accountability and an inability to adapt effectively. This distinction is crucial for leaders who want to ensure their board’s efforts are translating into meaningful business outcomes. He poses a direct challenge to his audience:

“Which of these seven signals breaks down first in your boardroom?”

By focusing on these seven signals, Curum suggests that organizations can move beyond the illusion of activity and cultivate a culture where strategic motion is consistently translated into measurable progress. This approach, he implies, is essential for true strategic success in today’s dynamic business environment.