By Antonio Tejeda Encinas, SJD / Dr. iuris
President of the Comité Euro Americano de Derecho Digital.
CEO of META Channel Corporation. Author of the Praxis House concept.
Author’s note: When “consultant” is no longer enough
Every time I explain what we do at META Channel Corporation, I encounter the same scene: executives who expect to hear the word “consulting” and are perplexed when I say that we are a Praxis House –a term we coined to define an entity dedicated to strategic reflective action (praxis), where the Execution is the essence of value. The term throws them off. Some nod politely, others ask cautiously, but most remain silent for a few seconds, trying to decipher what exactly it means. And no wonder: there is no previous manual that defines what a Praxis House is.
This confusion confirms an intuition: the label “consultant” has fallen short of describing what we do. Classic consulting refers to diagnosis, reports and recommendations. We, on the other hand, move on another level: that of the actual execution of the strategy, where plans become impact. It was from that need—to accurately name what we do and distinguish it from the competition—that the Praxis House concept emerged. I propose it not only as a category for my own business practice, but as a new academic and organizational term, intended to capture a broader transformation in the way we understand strategic management.
Introduction
Thomas A. Edison warned that ““vision without execution is hallucination.”. This sentence encapsulates a central challenge in the world of business and organizational management: there is little point in conceiving great strategies or inspiring visions if we are not able to put them into practice. In the contemporary corporate environment, the gap between strategic formulation and its effective implementation remains notable. An often cited fact comes from Fortune magazine, which already warned in 1999 that less than 10% of correctly formulated strategies are successfully executed. In other words, the vast majority of strategic plans die on paper, victims of poor or non-existent execution. As renowned management experts Ram Charan and Geoffrey Colvin point out in their work, the problem usually does not lie in the quality of the formulated strategy, but in what happens afterwards: according to decades of study in companies around the world, “the error is not found in the early phase of the strategy, but later”, that is, in poor execution.
Given this reality, the need to rethink the ways in which organizations approach the leap from theory to practice is evident. This is where we propose the concept of “Praxis House”: a new organizational category, different from classic consulting, conceived precisely to orchestrate the actual execution of the strategy. In this essay we will explore what a Praxis House means, why it arises as a response to the limitations of traditional consulting and how it integrates vision, operational deployment and responsibility for results in a holistic way. To support this idea, we will turn to the reflections of thinkers in management, governance and the philosophy of organizational action, with an analytical but accessible tone, avoiding unnecessary jargon. The objective is to outline a new academic-philosophical reflection that illuminates why the term “Praxis House” can better describe those entities oriented to effective strategic action.
From vision to execution: the gap between strategy and praxis
Organizations often invest considerable resources in strategic planning—defining a vision, establishing long-term objectives, outlining action plans—but the true impact of any strategy depends on its execution. Howard Schultz, founder of Starbucks, stated that even the best strategy in the world is useless if it is not executed. Even more forceful, former CEO Mike Roach popularized the phrase “strategy without execution is hallucination,” emphasizing that a strategic vision without practical concreteness is merely a mirage. The gap between vision and reality has been widely documented: classic strategic management studies indicate that an overwhelming percentage of corporate strategies do not achieve the desired results due to failures in their implementation.
Why is it so difficult to turn ideas into facts? Various analysts point to recurring factors. On the one hand, organizations face internal inertia, resistance to change and rigid structures that make it difficult to translate new plans into concrete actions. On the other hand, there is often a disconnection between those who formulate the strategy and those who must execute it on a day-to-day basis. Ineffective communication, lack of cultural alignment, and lack of clear incentives can undermine execution from the start. Likewise, a frequently noted obstacle is the dilution of responsibility: when “everyone” is responsible, in practice no one is. In fact, according to surveys of hundreds of executives, one of the most cited impediments to effective execution was lack of clarity about responsibility and accountability in execution decisions. Without a clear assignment of who should do what, and without mechanisms to hold them accountable, strategic initiatives tend to stagnate.
Organizational thinker Chris Argyris provided a useful perspective when he noted that effectiveness in action depends on the congruence between what we say and what we do. In Argyris terms, organizations often have a “theory stated” (what they proclaim in their plans and speeches) distinct from their “theory in use” (what they actually do). When there is a gap between the two, the strategy fails. Effective actions, Argyris argued, arise from aligning theory with practice, so that concrete acts faithfully reflect strategic intent. This reflection links directly to the concept of praxis, a term with Greek roots that refers to reflective action, to practice informed by theory. Unlike theory (theoría, contemplation) or mere instrumental production (poíesis), praxis implies conscious action oriented by values and knowledge, whose purpose is the action itself. In words inspired by Aristotle, “praxis describes a type of activity that is carried out in and for itself: the action itself is the goal.” That is, it is in the act of executing that the purpose is embodied.
From this perspective, the execution of the strategy is not a technical-secondary component of management, but rather its very essence: it is the organizational praxis par excellence. Without execution, the strategy lacks reality; Without praxis, the vision remains utopia. Hence the urgency of finding organizational mechanisms that close the gap between strategic vision and operational action, between formulated theory and carried out practice. The idea of a Praxis House arises precisely as a response to that need.
Limitations of classic consulting
Traditionally, when companies faced the challenge of executing their strategies, they turned to consulting firms for expert advice. Classic consulting – represented by the large strategic management consultancies – has historically focused on analysis, advice and the design of solutions. A typical consultant provides “independent advice and support on management matters,” providing an external, neutral and specialized view of the client’s problems. His role is similar to that of an organizational architect: he diagnoses the situation, proposes a plan (the “design” of the solution) and recommends certain “works” to be undertaken. However, no matter how lucid the recommendation, the traditional consultant rarely gets his hands dirty in the execution of these works.
There are structural reasons for this distance. By definition, consulting is an advisory service. The Brazilian Consulting Institute (IBCO), for example, describes it as an interactive process in which an external change agent “assumes the responsibility of assisting and collaborating with executives in making decisions, without having direct control of the situations that are going to be changed.” In other words, the consultant guides, but does not direct the implementation; advises, but does not command or operate within the client’s structure. In fact, one of the advantages classically attributed to the consultant is his neutrality and independence: since he is not part of the internal hierarchy, he can give his opinion objectively. But that independence also implies distance from the operational trench.
The practical consequence of this model is that, once the report or designed strategy has been delivered, the responsibility for executing it falls entirely on the client organization. Consultants usually withdraw at this stage, perhaps limiting themselves to sporadic accompaniment or evaluating progress from the outside. If implementation fails, the consultant can argue (often rightly) that his or her recommendations were not implemented correctly or with sufficient conviction. Thus, classic consulting suffers from a kind of misalignment of incentives: its success is measured by the quality of the analysis and the client’s immediate satisfaction with the recommendations, rather than by the concrete results achieved in the long term. There is little “skin in the game”, as Nassim Taleb would say, that is, little exposure to the risk of actual execution.
It is not surprising, then, that criticism proliferates about the real effectiveness of certain consultancies. Peter Drucker used to distinguish between having a brilliant strategy on paper and the ability to translate it into tangible results, emphasizing that “strategy is a commodity; execution is an art.” Traditional consulting has mastered that “art” in its conceptual facet (the art of ideating), but has often left vacant the artistic terrain of implementation (the art of doing). Henry Mintzberg, for his part, criticized overly formalized strategic planning for disconnecting from emergent action, reminding us that effective strategy often “emerges” from practice and continuous adaptation rather than from rigid plans. In short, the conventional consulting model tends to exhaust its contribution right at the point where the real test begins: the implementation of the strategy in complex real conditions.
“Praxis House”: a new action-oriented category
Faced with the aforementioned limitations, the concept of Praxis House is proposed as an organizational alternative that transcends classic consulting. What exactly is a Praxis House? We can define it as an entity whose main mission is to orchestrate the comprehensive execution of its clients’ strategy, assuming an active role in achieving specific results. If the traditional consulting firm is the “architect” who designs the plan, the Praxis House is rather the “master builder” who ensures that the construction is carried out according to the plan, adapting to the terrain, resolving unforeseen events and guaranteeing the solidity of the building.
The term praxis emphasizes precisely this vocation for effective action. Unlike a mere external advisor, Praxis House is involved in the operational deployment of the strategy. This may involve your teams working closely with client teams, including temporarily integrating into the organizational structure to lead key projects, implement systems, reconfigure processes, or manage necessary cultural change. Far from limiting itself to recommending what to do, Praxis House collaborates on how to do it, providing not only knowledge but also doing. In essence, it offers a combination of strategic vision and execution capacity.
A distinctive feature of this category is the alignment of incentives and responsibilities with the success of the implemented strategy. Praxis House does not live solely on fees for consulting services provided, but often links its remuneration—or its continuity in the project—to the achievement of certain milestones or measurable results. In this way, you are closer to being an execution partner than an idea provider. This is a crucial difference: while the classic consulting firm maintains a certain distance and objectivity, Praxis House takes the risk together with the client organization, risking reputation (and even economic benefits) in the implementation. You could say that it introduces a deeper ethic of responsibility into the relationship with the client: it assumes co-responsibility for the fate of strategic initiatives, rather than handing in a report and walking away.
From a governance perspective, Praxis House represents an interesting innovation. Good corporate governance frameworks insist on the importance of diligent execution of the strategy and accountability for the results obtained. However, many boards of directors and senior executives recognize that, even if they know what they want to achieve, they do not always have the means or time to ensure how to achieve it. This is where a Praxis House can act as an external orchestrator, but with a level of integration and commitment that makes it almost an extension of the executive team itself. This is not about replacing internal responsibility, but about reinforcing it with a specialized capacity that supports it end-to-end.
Integrating vision, operational deployment and results
To better understand the contribution of a Praxis House, it is useful to break down its roles throughout the strategic cycle. First, it collaborates in clarifying the vision and strategy, ensuring that the objectives are well defined but also grounded in operational reality. He often adjusts or prioritizes strategic initiatives based on their practical feasibility, bringing a healthy realism to the planning phase. This early practical approach avoids grandiose but impossible to execute plans, one of the common sins in certain strategic planning disconnected from the operation.
Secondly, in the operational deployment phase, Praxis House takes a leading role. Here you act almost like an orchestra conductor: coordinate teams, define detailed schedules, assign resources, implement project management or agile methodologies as appropriate, and monitor progress. Thanks to his executive experience in multiple organizations, he provides know-how on how to overcome common bottlenecks in execution (resistance to change, communication problems, lack of skills, etc.). A practical example could be that of a company that must take its business model to the digital environment: the traditional consulting firm may have developed the digital plan; Praxis House, on the other hand, would direct the construction of technological platforms, process reengineering and staff training, working day by day until the transformation materializes.
Finally, Praxis House is not removed when a report is delivered, but remains until the results are confirmed. It participates in the implementation of metrics and indicators (KPIs) that allow us to know if the strategy is bearing fruit, and helps to correct the course if the indicators suggest it. In a sense, it assumes a strategic feedback function: it translates results data into learnings to adjust both strategy and tactics on the fly. This continuous execution-learning dynamic feeds back the strategic vision, closing the cycle of praxis. Here we see another dimension of the word praxis: a reflective practice, which is not mere “blind action”, but action guided by the constant evaluation of reality (a kind of conscious emergent strategy).
An important aspect is the management of accountability (responsibility towards results). Praxis House, by getting involved in execution, helps to establish clear accountability mechanisms. For example, together with management, define who will be the owners of each initiative, what specific results are expected and within what deadlines, and establish follow-up rituals where those responsible must report progress and obstacles. This culture of accountability mitigates the aforementioned problem of “diluted responsibility.” Furthermore, Praxis House itself is subject to that scrutiny: if certain objectives are not met, it must explain why, and its credibility (and contract) will be at stake. In short, an ecosystem of shared commitment is created.
Responsibility and philosophy of action in the “House of Praxis”
The name Praxis House not only indicates a house or entity dedicated to the practice, but also evokes a certain philosophy of action. Underlying this philosophy is the idea that doing is not secondary to thinking, but that both form an inseparable continuum. The philosopher Hannah Arendt, in her analysis of the active life, placed “action” as the highest of human capabilities, above mere work or manufacturing. For Arendt, action is the ability to start something new, to intervene in the world to transform reality through initiative. It is the power to create a beginning. This idea resonates deeply with the mission of a Praxis House, which embodies that priority for transformation over mere interpretation. It is not satisfied with analyzing the situation of a company and preparing reports; assumes the mandate to initiate change and effectively alter that business reality together with the client.
Of course, this raises challenges and potential objections. Some might argue that an entity so involved in execution may lose the objectivity that characterizes a good consultant. Loss of objectivity? On the contrary, we gain a objectivity based on operational reality. Our analysis doesn’t just come from data in a report, but from direct experience of implementing in the customer’s playing field. It is a richer and more grounded perspective. And, how to balance analytical impartiality with participatory commitment? The answer is that Praxis House must cultivate a kind of “bifocality”: maintaining a broad strategic vision (not getting caught up in the operation to the point of losing perspective), while at the same time immersing itself enough in the operation to influence it. Here, the experience and talent of its professionals play a critical role. Hybrid profiles are required: thinkers-doers, strategists who are also implementers. This type of comprehensive professional breaks the traditional mold of the theoretical consultant on the one hand and the executing manager on the other, combining both facets.
Likewise, a Praxis House must be aware of the limits of its intervention. It is not about creating dependency or supplanting the internal capabilities of the organization, but about enhancing them. Ideally, after passing a Praxis House, the client company will have not only managed to execute its immediate strategy, but will have learned how to execute better in the future, strengthening its own culture of praxis. In that sense, Praxis House also acts as an organizational mentor, leaving a legacy in the form of methodologies, skills and execution habits established in the company.
Conclusion
In a business environment marked by uncertainty and the need for constant adaptation, organizations no longer have the luxury of drawing up ambitious strategies that then founder in inaction. A more integrated vision of management is imposed, where the border between planning and executing is blurred in favor of a continuous cycle of learning in action. The proposal of a Praxis House as a new organizational category responds to this vision, providing a concrete response to the historical divorce between “thinking” and “doing” in the company.
We have argued that a Praxis House is distinguished from classic consulting because it assumes an active commitment to results, uniting the vision with operational action and becoming co-responsible for the success or failure of the implemented strategy. This holistic approach integrates strategic formulation with change management, project execution and the achievement of measurable objectives, thus covering the last critical stretch where so many strategies fail. By giving praxis to strategy—that is, by embodying theory in action—the etymology of the term is fully honored: strategy ceases to be a Platonic idea and becomes a tangible reality.
In philosophical and management terms, we talk about recovering the unity between logos (speech, idea) and praxis (action, realization). Great management thinkers have reminded us that strategy only gains meaning in its execution. As Antonio Nieto-Rodríguez, a contemporary expert in strategic execution, emphasizes, the true impact of any strategy is manifested only when it is successfully put into practice. A Praxis House operates precisely in that impact, in that critical intersection between what you want to achieve and what is actually achieved.
In short, elevating the concept of Praxis House is advocating for organizations—and external partners—that not only think but do, that turn vision into results and that take full responsibility for the journey. To the extent that companies adopt this approach, whether by building internal praxis capabilities or allying with entities that embody this philosophy, we will see the persistently observed gap between the formulated strategy and the reality achieved close. Because, to paraphrase Edison again, only when vision merges with execution do we leave hallucinations behind and materialize the future we imagine.
