By Antonio Tejeda Encinas, SJD / Dr. iuris.
President of CEA Digital Law (Euro-American Committee of Digital Law).
CEO of META Channel Corporation. Author of the Praxis House concept.
Author’s note: When “consultancy” is no longer enough
Every time I explain what we do at META Channel Corporation, I find myself in the same situation: executives expect to hear the word “consultancy” and are left puzzled when I say that we are a Praxis House — a term we coined to describe an entity devoted to reflective strategic action (praxis), in which execution is the very essence of value. The term throws them. Some nod politely, others ask cautious questions, but most fall silent for a few seconds, trying to work out exactly what it means. And no wonder: there is no existing manual that defines what a Praxis House is.
That bewilderment confirms an intuition: the label “consultancy” no longer goes far enough to describe what we do. Classic consulting is about diagnosis, reports and recommendations. We, by contrast, work on a different plane: the actual execution of strategy, where plans turn into impact. It was out of that need — to name precisely what we do and to set it apart from the competition — that the Praxis House concept emerged. I put it forward not only as a category for my own business practice, but as a new academic and organisational term, intended to capture a broader shift in how we understand strategic management.
Introduction
Thomas A. Edison warned that “vision without execution is hallucination”. That line captures a central challenge in business and organisational management: there is little point in conceiving great strategies or inspiring visions if we are unable to put them into practice. In today’s corporate world, the gap between formulating a strategy and implementing it effectively remains striking. A frequently cited figure comes from Fortune magazine, which warned as early as 1999 that fewer than 10% of well-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 the renowned management experts Ram Charan and Geoffrey Colvin point out in their work, the problem usually lies not in the quality of the strategy but in what happens next: according to decades of study of companies around the world, “the error lies not in the early stage of strategy, but afterwards” — in other words, in poor execution.
Against this background, organisations clearly need to rethink how they make the leap from theory to practice. This is where we put forward the concept of the “Praxis House”: a new organisational category, distinct from classic consulting, conceived precisely to orchestrate the real execution of strategy. In this essay we will explore what a Praxis House is, why it has emerged as a response to the limitations of traditional consulting, and how it brings together vision, operational roll-out and accountability for results in a holistic way. To ground this idea, we will draw on thinkers in management, governance and the philosophy of organisational action, in an analytical but accessible tone that avoids unnecessary jargon. The aim is to offer a fresh academic and philosophical reflection that shows why the term “Praxis House” may better describe entities focused on effective strategic action.
From vision to execution: the gap between strategy and praxis
Organisations often invest considerable resources in strategic planning — defining a vision, setting long-term objectives, mapping out action plans — but the real impact of any strategy depends on its execution. Howard Schultz, the founder of Starbucks, said that even the best strategy in the world is useless if it is not executed. More bluntly still, the former CEO Mike Roach popularised the phrase “strategy without execution is hallucination”, stressing that a strategic vision without practical substance is no more than a mirage. The gap between vision and reality has been widely documented: classic studies in strategic management show that an overwhelming proportion of corporate strategies fail to achieve the desired results because of flaws in their implementation.
Why is it so hard to turn ideas into reality? Analysts point to a number of recurring factors. On the one hand, organisations face internal inertia, resistance to change and rigid structures that make it difficult to translate new plans into concrete action. On the other, there is often a disconnect between those who formulate the strategy and those who have to carry it out day to day. Poor communication, a lack of cultural alignment and the absence of clear incentives can undermine execution from the outset. Another commonly noted obstacle is diluted responsibility: when “everyone” is responsible, in practice no one is. Indeed, in surveys of hundreds of executives, one of the most often cited impediments to effective execution was a lack of clarity about responsibility and accountability for execution decisions. Without a clear allocation of who must do what, and without mechanisms for holding people to account, strategic initiatives tend to stall. The organisational thinker Chris Argyris offered a useful perspective when he observed that effective action depends on the consistency between what we say and what we do. In Argyris’s terms, organisations often have an “espoused theory” (what they proclaim in their plans and speeches) that differs from their “theory-in-use” (what they actually do). When there is a gap between the two, strategy fails. Effective action, Argyris argued, comes from aligning theory with practice, so that concrete actions faithfully reflect strategic intent. This idea leads directly to the concept of praxis, a term of Greek origin that refers to reflective action — practice informed by theory. Unlike theory (theoría, contemplation) or mere instrumental production (poíesis), praxis means conscious action guided by values and knowledge, whose purpose is the action itself. In words inspired by Aristotle, “praxis describes a kind of activity that is performed in and for itself: the action itself is the goal”. In other words, it is in the act of execution that purpose takes shape. Seen in this light, executing strategy is not a secondary, technical component of management but its very essence: it is organisational praxis par excellence. Without execution, strategy has no reality; without praxis, vision remains a utopia. Hence the urgent need for organisational mechanisms that close the gap between strategic vision and operational action, between theory as formulated and practice as carried out. The idea of a Praxis House arises precisely in response to that need.
The 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 solution design. A typical consultant provides “independent advice and support on management matters”, bringing an external, neutral and specialist view to the client’s problems. The role resembles that of an organisational architect: the consultant diagnoses the situation, proposes a plan (the “design” of the solution) and recommends certain “works” to be carried out. Yet however clear-sighted the recommendation, the traditional consultant rarely gets their hands dirty carrying out those 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 “takes on the responsibility of helping and working with executives in decision-making, without having direct control over the situations to be changed”. In other words, the consultant guides but does not lead the implementation; advises, but neither directs nor operates within the client’s structure. Indeed, one of the advantages traditionally attributed to consultants is their neutrality and independence: because they are not part of the internal hierarchy, they can give an objective opinion. But that independence also means distance from the operational front line.
The practical consequence of this model is that, once the report or strategy has been delivered, responsibility for executing it falls entirely on the client organisation. Consultants usually step back at this point, perhaps offering occasional support or assessing progress from the outside. If implementation fails, the consultant can argue (often rightly) that the recommendations were not implemented properly or with enough conviction. Classic consulting therefore 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 over the long term. There is little “skin in the game”, as Nassim Taleb would put it — that is, little exposure to the risk of real execution.
Small wonder, then, that criticism of the real effectiveness of some consultancies is widespread. Peter Drucker used to distinguish between having a brilliant strategy on paper and being able to translate it into tangible results, stressing that “strategy is a commodity; execution is an art”. Traditional consulting has mastered that “art” in its conceptual dimension (the art of devising), but has often left the art of implementation (the art of doing) unclaimed. Henry Mintzberg, for his part, criticised over-formalised strategic planning for becoming disconnected 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 run out of steam at precisely the point where the real test begins: putting the strategy into practice under complex real-world conditions.
“Praxis House”: a new action-oriented category
In response to these limitations, the Praxis House concept is put forward as an organisational alternative that goes beyond classic consulting. What exactly is a Praxis House? It can be defined as an entity whose main mission is to orchestrate the full execution of its clients’ strategy, taking an active role in achieving concrete results. If the traditional consultancy is the “architect” who draws up the blueprint, the Praxis House is more like the “master builder” who makes sure the building goes up according to that blueprint, adapting to the terrain, dealing with the unexpected and ensuring the structure is sound.
The term praxis underlines precisely this commitment to effective action. Unlike a mere external adviser, a Praxis House is involved in the operational roll-out of the strategy. This may mean its teams working side by side with the client’s teams, even joining the organisational structure temporarily to lead key projects, implement systems, redesign processes or manage the necessary cultural change. Far from simply recommending what to do, a Praxis House works with the client on how to do it, contributing not only know-how but also hands-on delivery. In essence, it combines strategic vision with the capacity to execute.
A distinctive feature of this category is that incentives and responsibilities are aligned with the success of the strategy being implemented. A Praxis House does not live solely on fees for consulting work delivered; it often ties its remuneration — or its continued involvement in the project — to reaching certain milestones or measurable results. In this way, it is closer to an execution partner than a supplier of ideas. This is a crucial difference: while the classic consultancy keeps a certain distance and objectivity, a Praxis House puts itself on the line alongside the client organisation, staking its reputation (and even its earnings) on the implementation. It could be said to bring a deeper ethic of responsibility to the client relationship: it shares responsibility for the fate of strategic initiatives, rather than handing over a report and walking away.
From a governance perspective, the Praxis House is an interesting innovation. Good corporate governance frameworks stress the importance of diligent execution of strategy and of accountability for the results achieved. Yet many boards and senior executives acknowledge that, even when they know what they want to achieve, they do not always have the means or the time to make sure it gets done. This is where a Praxis House can act as an external orchestrator, but with a degree of integration and commitment that makes it almost an extension of the executive team itself. The point is not to replace internal responsibility, but to reinforce it with specialist capability that supports it end-to-end.
Integrating vision, operational roll-out and results
To better understand what a Praxis House contributes, it helps to break down its roles across the strategic cycle. First, it helps to clarify the vision and strategy, making sure that the objectives are well defined but also grounded in operational reality. It often adjusts or prioritises strategic initiatives according to their practical feasibility, bringing a healthy dose of realism to the planning phase. This early practical focus avoids plans that are grand but impossible to execute — one of the common failings of strategic planning that is disconnected from operations. Second, in the operational roll-out phase, the Praxis House takes a leading role. Here it acts almost like an orchestra conductor: coordinating teams, setting detailed timetables, allocating resources, applying project management or agile methodologies as appropriate, and monitoring progress. Drawing on its executive experience across many organisations, it brings know-how on overcoming the usual bottlenecks in execution (resistance to change, communication problems, skills gaps and so on). One practical example would be a company that needs to take its business model digital: the traditional consultancy might have drawn up the digital plan; the Praxis House, by contrast, would lead the building of the technology platforms, the process re-engineering and the staff training, working day by day until the transformation takes shape.
Finally, the Praxis House does not withdraw once a report has been delivered; it stays until the results are confirmed. It takes part in putting in place the metrics and indicators (KPIs) that show whether the strategy is bearing fruit, and helps to change course if the indicators suggest it. In a sense, it takes on a strategic feedback role: it turns results data into lessons that allow both strategy and tactics to be adjusted along the way. This continuous cycle of execution and learning feeds back into the strategic vision, closing the praxis loop. Here we see another dimension of the word praxis: a reflective practice that is not mere “blind action” but action guided by constant assessment of reality (a kind of conscious emergent strategy).
One important aspect is the management of accountability (responsibility for results). By getting involved in execution, the Praxis House helps to establish clear accountability mechanisms. For example, together with management it defines who will own each initiative, what specific results are expected and by when, and sets up follow-up routines in which those responsible must report on progress and obstacles. This culture of accountability mitigates the problem of “diluted responsibility” mentioned earlier. What is more, the Praxis House itself is subject to the same scrutiny: if certain objectives are not met, it must explain why, and its credibility (and its contract) will be at stake. The result is an ecosystem of shared commitment.
Responsibility and the philosophy of action in the “House of Praxis”
The name Praxis House does not merely denote a house or entity devoted to practice; it also evokes a certain philosophy of action. Underlying this philosophy is the idea that doing is not secondary to thinking, but that the two form an inseparable continuum. The philosopher Hannah Arendt, in her analysis of the vita activa, ranked “action” as the highest of human capacities, above mere labour or fabrication. For Arendt, action is the capacity to begin something new, to intervene in the world and transform reality through initiative. It is the power to make a beginning. This idea resonates strongly with the mission of a Praxis House, which embodies that priority of transformation over mere interpretation. It is not content to analyse a company’s situation and write reports; it takes on the task of initiating change and actually altering that business reality together with the client.
Naturally, this raises challenges and possible objections. Some might argue that an entity so involved in execution may lose the objectivity that is the hallmark of a good consultant. A loss of objectivity? On the contrary, we gain an objectivity rooted in operational reality. Our analysis comes not only from data in a report but from direct experience of implementation on the client’s own ground. It is a richer, better-grounded perspective. And how is analytical impartiality to be balanced with hands-on commitment? The answer is that a Praxis House must cultivate a kind of “bifocal” vision: keeping a broad strategic view (not becoming so absorbed in operations that it loses perspective), while immersing itself deeply enough in operations to influence them. Here, the experience and talent of its people play a critical role. Hybrid profiles are needed: thinker-doers, strategists who are also implementers. This kind of all-round professional breaks the traditional mould of the theoretical consultant on the one hand and the executing manager on the other, combining both.
Likewise, a Praxis House must be aware of the limits of its intervention. The aim is not to create dependency or to supplant the organisation’s internal capabilities, but to strengthen them. Ideally, after working with a Praxis House, the client company will not only have executed its immediate strategy but will also have learned how to execute better in future, strengthening its own culture of praxis. In that sense, the Praxis House also acts as an organisational mentor, leaving behind a legacy of methodologies, skills and execution habits embedded in the company.
Conclusion
In a business environment marked by uncertainty and the need for constant adaptation, organisations can no longer afford to draw up ambitious strategies that then founder through inaction. A more integrated view of management is called for, in which the line between planning and executing blurs into a continuous cycle of learning through action. The proposal of the Praxis House as a new organisational category responds to this view, offering a concrete answer to the long-standing divorce between “thinking” and “doing” in business.
We have argued that a Praxis House differs from classic consulting because it makes an active commitment to results, joining vision to operational action and sharing responsibility for the success or failure of the strategy being implemented. This holistic approach brings together strategy formulation, change management, project execution and the achievement of measurable objectives, thereby covering the critical final stretch where so many strategies fail. By bringing praxis to strategy — that is, by embodying theory in action — we fully honour the etymology of the term: strategy ceases to be a Platonic idea and becomes tangible reality.
In philosophical and management terms, this means restoring the unity between logos (discourse, idea) and praxis (action, realisation). Great management thinkers have reminded us that strategy only acquires meaning when it is executed. As Antonio Nieto-Rodríguez, a contemporary expert in strategy execution, rightly stresses, the true impact of any strategy only becomes apparent when it is successfully put into practice. A Praxis House operates precisely at that point of impact, at the critical intersection between what an organisation sets out to achieve and what it actually achieves.
In short, championing the Praxis House concept means advocating organisations — and external partners — that not only think but act, that turn vision into results and that take full responsibility for the journey. As companies adopt this approach, whether by building their own internal praxis capabilities or by partnering with entities that embody this philosophy, we will see the long-observed gap between strategy as formulated and reality as achieved begin to close. Because, to paraphrase Edison once more, only when vision merges with execution do we leave hallucinations behind and bring about the future we imagine.
