When an organisation identifies a transformation need — a turnaround, a leadership gap, a major operational overhaul — the default instinct is often to call a strategy consultancy. It's a reasonable instinct. It is not always the right one.
What strategy consultancies are built for
Strategy consultancies are genuinely strong at structured diagnosis: market analysis, competitive positioning, operating model design, scenario planning. Where they are structurally weaker is in sustained, embedded execution. Engagement models are typically built around a defined output — a report, a roadmap, a recommendation — with the assumption that the client's own management team will carry it forward. When the gap is capacity to execute, rather than clarity on what to do, a consultancy engagement can produce an excellent plan that nobody inside the organisation has the bandwidth or experience to actually run.
What interim transformation leadership is built for
A transformation leader, by contrast, is embedded inside the organisation, with day-to-day decision authority, for the duration needed to see a defined outcome through — typically six to twelve months rather than six to twelve weeks. This model suits situations where the organisation knows broadly what needs to happen but lacks the specific senior capacity, the time, or the outside credibility to drive it through resistance, ambiguity, and the inevitable mid-course corrections that real execution involves.
A simple decision framework
A useful starting test for a CEO or board: if the core uncertainty is "what should we do," the need is closer to strategic advisory. If the core uncertainty is "we know roughly what to do, but we don't have someone with the seniority and bandwidth to actually drive it," the need is closer to transformation leadership. Many real situations need both — diagnosis followed by sustained execution — which is itself a sign that whichever firm is engaged needs either genuine execution muscle or a credible partner to hand off to.
The gap in between
The market gap this points to is not a flaw in either model individually — it's the absence of continuity between them. Recruiters place people and move on, with no mechanism for ongoing governance. Consultancies deliver the plan and largely step back from execution. Few firms are built to sit across both: identifying the right execution leader and governing the outcome they're accountable for delivering.
For African CEOs facing transformation decisions, that continuity — not the strategy document itself — is often what determines whether the plan survives contact with reality.