Strategic range

Balancing the tension between the possible and the practical

Strategic range reflects how a leader works with ideas and possibilities in relation to constraints and feasibility. It captures a core leadership tension between two legitimate ways of thinking, an imaginative orientation, which expands what could be, and a pragmatic orientation, which tests what is feasible.

Most leaders have a natural leaning toward one side of this spectrum. What differentiates highly effective leaders is not which side they prefer, but how consciously and skilfully they can recognise their default and stretch toward the other when the situation requires it.

Strategic range is therefore both a trait and a capability. It reflects your natural orientation, and your ability to flex that orientation to meet the demands of strategy, execution, and context.

How the two orientations tend to show up in thinking, language, and priorities.

Strategic range is not about choosing one side. It is about holding and working productively with the tension between them.

Imaginative orientation (expanding possibility)	Pragmatic orientation (anchoring feasibility)
Oriented toward creative visions and “blue sky” possibilities. Prioritises future potential over current limitations. Naturally asks, “What could be?” Enjoys exploring ideas before worrying about constraints.	Takes a grounded, experience-based approach. Focuses on what works, what is proven, and what can be implemented with available resources. Naturally asks, “What is feasible now?” Brings attention quickly to constraints, trade-offs, and delivery realities.

These are not fixed identities. They describe default tendencies. Effective leaders learn to recognise which orientation they favour and intentionally activate the other when the system requires it.

How to spot your default (in yourself and others)

Observable patterns that reveal whether someone naturally leans imaginative or pragmatic, especially under pressure.

Imaginative-leaning default (signals of expanding possibility)	Pragmatic-leaning default (signals of anchoring feasibility)
Meeting behaviour Introduces new ideas or directions more often than refining existing ones. Quick to add perspectives or new angles to the discussion.	Meeting behaviour Asks clarifying questions about scope, resources, timelines, and dependencies. Pushes for definition and alignment before moving forward.
Primary focus Speaks more about future possibilities than current constraints. Frames conversations around potential and long-term opportunity.	Primary focus Focuses on what can be delivered with current people, budget, and systems. Frames conversations around feasibility and near-term execution.
Energy and engagement Becomes energised by brainstorming and idea generation. May lose interest as discussions shift into execution detail.	Energy and engagement Becomes more engaged as ideas turn into concrete plans and ownership. Draws energy from turning concepts into deliverables.
Response to challenges Responds by reframing, expanding, or adding options. Looks for alternative pathways rather than closing down choices.	Response to challenges Responds by narrowing options and driving toward decisions. Seeks to reduce ambiguity through clear choices.
Under pressure Tends to add initiatives or options rather than reduce scope. May defer feasibility discussions to preserve momentum.	Under pressure Tends to reduce ambition to protect delivery and reliability. May surface risks and dependencies early to avoid over-commitment.

Why strategic range matters

Where this trait creates or destroys value in real organisations. In a complex environment, the gap between strategy and execution is where most value is lost. Strategic range governs that gap. Organisations rarely fail because of a lack of ideas or a lack of execution capability. They fail because those two worlds drift apart.

We often assume that “visionary” leaders are superior. But vision without feasibility is hallucination. Organisations led by strongly imaginative leaders often suffer from initiative fatigue: bold ideas launched faster than the organisation can absorb, leading to overloaded portfolios, chronic under-delivery, and declining credibility.

Conversely, organisations led by strongly pragmatic leaders risk stagnation. They become highly efficient at managing the status quo but miss emerging opportunities that require ambiguity, experimentation, and a willingness to invest before everything is known.

In practice, imbalance shows up as:

• Bloated transformation portfolios with low completion rates.
• Strategy that feels disconnected from day-to-day reality.
• Operational excellence applied to yesterday’s business model.
• Growing mistrust between “thinkers” and “doers”.

True strategic range enables agility: the ability to expand thinking during ideation and anchor hard during execution.

What strong strategic range looks like in practice

Leaders with strong strategic range are not defined by whether they are visionary or pragmatic. They are defined by their ability to integrate both in the same leadership moment.

They can hold bold ambition and operational reality in the same conversation. They create space for expansive thinking early, then deliberately shift into disciplined narrowing. They know when to suspend disbelief and when to demand hard trade-offs.

In practice, this often looks like:

• Encouraging wide exploration of possibilities before committing to a direction

• Making the transition from ideation to execution explicit, rather than blurred

• Translating vision into concrete choices about priorities, resources, and sequencing

• Protecting space for experimentation while also protecting delivery discipline

• Helping teams understand not just what is exciting, but what is realistically achievable now versus later

Teams experience these leaders as both inspiring and grounding. Strategy feels ambitious but not detached. Execution feels disciplined but not narrow. People trust that big ideas will be taken seriously and that delivery commitments will be honoured.

At a systems level, strong strategic range reduces the chronic gap between thinking and doing. It increases credibility, sharpens prioritisation, and creates momentum that compounds over time.

In complex environments, this integrated capability is a hallmark of leadership maturity.

Deep dive: contributions and liabilities

How each orientation adds value and where it can unintentionally block progress.

Most leaders anchor naturally on one side. Understanding your default helps you see both where you add value and where you may inadvertently limit progress.

Imaginative orientation (expanding possibility)	Pragmatic orientation (anchoring feasibility)
Core contribution Thinks creatively and explores innovative ideas. Envisions possibilities beyond current constraints. Inspires others with long-range thinking and ambition. Challenges assumptions and status-quo thinking.	Core contribution Grounds thinking in experience and tested approaches. Focuses on what can realistically be implemented. Identifies constraints and manages operational risk. Helps teams stay anchored, efficient, and focused.
Shadow side (when over-relied on) May overlook feasibility, timing, or available resources. Can appear unrealistic or disconnected from operations. May generate more ideas than the system can absorb. Can frustrate teams that prefer concrete, step-by-step progress.	Shadow side (when over-relied on) Can resist change that feels unproven or unclear. May dismiss unconventional ideas too quickly. Can struggle to see opportunities beyond current limits. May unintentionally suppress innovation in favour of short-term certainty.

Barriers to range

The psychological reasons people get stuck on one side.

Difficulty flexing is rarely about skill. More often, it reflects protective patterns that have served you well in the past.

Barriers for imaginative-leaning leaders (Why it is hard to be pragmatic)	Barriers for pragmatic-leaning leaders (Why it is hard to be imaginative)
The “buzzkill” fear Concern that talking about constraints will kill energy and momentum.Novelty bias The brain gets a reward from starting, not finishing. Execution work feels draining compared to ideation.Optimism armour Using big-picture thinking to deflect valid questions about time, cost, and capacity.	The “expert” trap Deep experience makes it easy to see why things will not work, which can shut down exploration too early.Fear of ambiguity A preference for certainty leads to premature closure on ideas.The feasibility illusion Confusing “not yet planned” with “not possible.”

These are not flaws. They are protective strategies that once helped you succeed. Strategic range involves recognising when yesterday’s strengths are now today’s constraints.

Micro-practices for development

Small, repeatable ways to stretch your range. Use these drills to deliberately practise the side that feels less natural to you.

For imaginative-leaning leaders (Goal: strengthen pragmatism and execution)

For pragmatic-leaning leaders (Goal: strengthen imagination and vision)

The execution check (in strategy reviews): When presenting a new strategic idea, explicitly outline how it could realistically be implemented with current or planned resources. Pressure-test early (before green-lighting initiatives): Ask a pragmatic colleague to stress-test feasibility, timing, and capacity before broad rollout. Constraint focus (in portfolio prioritisation): In planning and investment discussions, make time, cost, and capacity part of your visible contribution. Map the path (in transformation planning): Translate one major idea into a clear sequence of phases, milestones, and ownership. Shadow the operator (in delivery forums): Spend time with operational leaders to understand how trade-offs are actually made on the ground. Traction audit (in executive reviews): Review which ideas gained traction and which stalled, and identify the execution factors that made the difference. Study implementation (as a leadership discipline): Build fluency in delivery, change, and scaling models, not just strategy frameworks. Impact reflection (after major initiatives): Reflect on where stronger follow-through would have increased credibility and organisational momentum.

The “yes, and” rule (in executive discussions): Extend ideas before narrowing them, even if they feel premature. Possibility pause (in decision forums): Ask, “What could be possible here?” before moving to feasibility and constraints. Unfiltered contribution (in strategy sessions): Offer ideas without pre-editing for practicality to create space for exploration. Scenario dreaming (in future planning): Explore alternative futures without immediately worrying about how they would be built. Value reflection (in investment reviews): Recall times when bold ideas created long-term value despite early uncertainty. Study visionaries (as leadership input): Observe how visionary leaders manage ambiguity while still creating disciplined progress. Stretch proposals (in system redesign): Suggest options that deliberately push beyond current systems and assumptions. Encourage the dream (before convergence): Invite broader thinking before the group narrows to execution choices.

Self-reflection questions

Prompts to notice your default and deliberately stretch your range

• When a new strategic idea is raised, do I instinctively expand the ambition or narrow it to feasibility? What impact does that have on the quality of the conversation?

• In moments of uncertainty, am I protecting the organisation from chaos, or protecting myself from discomfort with ambiguity?

• Looking at our current portfolio of initiatives, where has my imaginative orientation contributed to starting more than we can realistically finish?

• Where has my pragmatic orientation led me to close down ideas that, with more space, might have created significant future value?

• Do I tend to move quickly to “How will we do this?” before the strategic intent, “Why does this matter?” and “What could this become?” are fully explored?

• In senior discussions, do people experience me as someone who opens possibility, or someone who anchors reality? How balanced is that reputation?

• Over the past year, where has my default orientation helped the organisation, and where has it quietly limited our strategic range?

• When I feel impatient in strategic conversations, what is usually driving that impatience: a desire for progress, or discomfort with uncertainty?

This page is part of the Leadership traits library, designed to help leaders build behavioural range for complex, real-world environments.