[seanhunter]

Some companies definitely do this, having seperate "strategy" and "execution" functions for example and often the results aren't great because the strategy part just gets to think "blue sky" thoughts and doesn't need to commit to actually making anything work because they aren't involved in the actual implementation once the decision is made. This can be even worse when consultants do the strategy part as they get to drop slideware and leave others to do the dirty work. Often the slideware is even just ideas taken from the people on the execution side, furthering resentment.

What can work well is simply being more deliberately thoughtful about decision-making processes. For example Bridgewater Associates (the hedge fund) has internal principles that rather than trying to solve a particular problem, you should imagine you are designing a machine to solve the problem, and also that rather than just doing a particular thing, you think about yourself directing a movie of the thing. This allows you to compare what you're seeing to the "script of the movie" (your plan) you developed beforehand, to assess your outcomes.

The basic idea is that there is almost always value in investing in the "second order" thing (the design of the process, including decision-making processes) over and above the value of just achieving the outcome of the process (ie getting a decision).

If you're interested in the above, it's worth reading "Principles" by Ray Dalio.

Edit: added note about strategy consultants.