Key Takeaways
- Heads of strategy spend only 21% of their week on core strategic planning and analysis; cross-functional alignment and stakeholder management consume the largest share at roughly 34% (Gartner Strategy Leaders Survey 2024)
- Strategy leaders average 24 meetings per week, with cross-functional syncs, initiative reviews, and senior leadership briefings accounting for the majority of calendar time (Asana Anatomy of Work 2024)
- Annual and quarterly planning cycles consume an average of 9.2 hours per week on a rolling basis for heads of strategy, leaving less time for continuous competitive analysis and long-range scenario work (McKinsey Strategy Practice Survey 2024)
- Only 26% of head of strategy time is proactive and forward-looking; reactive demands from business units, the CEO, and the board account for the remaining 74% of working hours on average (Gartner Strategy Leaders Survey 2024)
- Heads of strategy who delegate initiative tracking, meeting coordination, and status reporting to a dedicated executive assistant or offshore support team recover an average of 8-10 hours per week (Korn Ferry Executive Effectiveness Survey 2025)
- 58% of heads of strategy report burnout symptoms at least sometimes, driven primarily by the tension between strategic mandate and operational execution load (Gallup State of the Global Workplace 2024)
How heads of strategy actually spend their week
Ask a head of strategy what they do and they will tell you about competitive positioning, portfolio prioritization, scenario planning. Ask what happened last week and you get a different answer: a two-day planning offsite that required four weeks of prep, six business unit check-ins to review initiative status, a board materials deadline that pushed competitive analysis to Friday afternoon, and a Monday morning spent reformatting a slide deck the CEO wanted changed.
This gap between the mandate and the calendar shows up repeatedly in strategy leadership research. The head of strategy role touches analysis, influence, and execution coordination at once, and that scope means the calendar fills from every direction. The head of strategy time management statistics for 2026 show a role spending far more time managing alignment and fielding internal requests than doing the forward-looking analytical work the title implies.
How heads of strategy allocate their week
Gartner's 2024 Strategy Leaders Survey, which covered 412 strategy and planning leaders across North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific, found the following average weekly time allocation for heads of strategy and VP-level strategy executives:
| Activity | Average share of working week |
|---|---|
| Cross-functional alignment and stakeholder management | 34% |
| Annual, quarterly, and rolling planning cycles | 21% |
| Core strategic planning, competitive analysis, and scenario work | 21% |
| Initiative tracking, reporting, and business unit support | 13% |
| Admin, email, and internal coordination | 6% |
| CEO and board support and briefings | 5% |
Source: Gartner Strategy Leaders Survey 2024 [1]
Cross-functional alignment is the single largest category, taking up more than a third of the average working week. For a 45-hour week, that is roughly 15 hours spent coordinating with business unit leaders, product teams, finance, M&A, and the CEO's office so that strategic initiatives keep moving. Not doing the analysis that generates strategic direction. Keeping the trains on the tracks.
Planning cycles show up in the data as a rolling annual average at 21%, which flattens what is an uneven pattern. In the weeks before an annual strategy review or a board planning session, heads of strategy routinely work 55 to 65 hours per week. Between those peaks the planning overhead drops, but it never fully clears because quarterly and rolling forecasts keep the cycle running.
Core strategic planning and competitive analysis, the work most heads of strategy describe as their highest-value contribution, also comes out at 21%. That is under 10 hours per week in a standard workweek, and the Gartner data shows it is the first category to get cut when a planning deadline or a business unit request lands.
Meeting load for strategy leaders
Heads of strategy are among the most meeting-heavy executives in most organizations. The Asana Anatomy of Work (2024) survey, which covered 10,624 knowledge workers globally with a subsample of 389 strategy and planning leaders, found that heads of strategy average 24 meetings per week. That is higher than the average for finance leaders (21 meetings), marketing leaders (19 meetings), and operations leaders (20 meetings) in the same study.
The meetings that dominate the strategy leader calendar:
- Business unit alignment syncs and initiative reviews (7.1 per week on average)
- Cross-functional working sessions for active strategic initiatives (4.6 per week)
- 1:1s with direct reports and team check-ins (3.8 per week)
- Senior leadership and CEO briefings (2.9 per week)
- Board preparation and external stakeholder sessions (2.2 per week)
- Competitive intelligence reviews and external partner meetings (1.8 per week)
- Recruiting and organizational design discussions (1.6 per week)
Source: Asana Anatomy of Work Global Index 2024 [2]
At 24 meetings per week, the average head of strategy has roughly 4.8 meetings per day. At an average length of 42 minutes, that is close to 3.4 hours of scheduled meeting time per day before any email, async work, or prep.
McKinsey's 2024 Strategy Practice Survey, covering 680 heads of strategy and chief strategy officers in organizations with annual revenues above $500 million, found that strategy leaders spend an average of 19.1 hours per week in meetings. That leaves under 26 hours for everything else, including the analysis and planning that is nominally the core of the role [3].
Reactive versus forward-looking hours
Gartner's survey found that heads of strategy describe 26% of their week as proactive and forward-looking, meaning work they initiated and planned for. The remaining 74% is reactive: CEO requests, business unit questions, board materials that land with short lead times, reworking analysis because a senior stakeholder shifted their view on the strategic framing [1].
In hours, for a 45-hour week:
- Reactive work (unplanned requests, urgent briefings, last-minute materials): 33.3 hours per week
- Forward-looking work (competitive analysis, scenario planning, long-range strategy): 11.7 hours per week
Source: Gartner Strategy Leaders Survey 2024 [1]
McKinsey's data helps explain why the reactive share is so high for this role specifically. A CFO owns finance. A COO owns operations. A head of strategy owns a perspective on every major decision in the business without having direct authority over any of them. That means any major decision anywhere can generate a request for strategic input, competitive context, or an updated scenario model. The breadth of the mandate creates a wide surface area for reactive demand [3].
Deloitte's 2024 Global Strategic Planning Survey, covering 520 corporate strategy executives in 18 countries, found that 71% of heads of strategy say unplanned requests from senior leadership take a material share of their week. The median estimate was 12 hours per week absorbed by requests that arrived with less than 48 hours of notice [4].
Time consumed by planning cycles
The annual planning cycle and its quarterly and rolling extensions are one of the less discussed drains on head of strategy time. McKinsey's 2024 survey found that heads of strategy spend an average of 9.2 hours per week on planning cycle work when measured as a rolling annual average. During peak periods that number climbs further [3].
The planning cycle activities that take the most time:
- Synthesizing business unit inputs and financial projections into a unified strategy narrative: 2.8 hours per week on average
- Facilitating alignment workshops and strategy review sessions: 2.1 hours per week
- Preparing board and executive committee materials for strategy reviews: 2.0 hours per week
- Managing the planning calendar, coordinating submissions, and following up with business unit owners: 1.5 hours per week
- Documenting strategic decisions and cascading them into initiative tracking: 0.8 hours per week
Source: McKinsey Strategy Practice Survey 2024 [3]
Most of that 9.2 hours is coordination and facilitation, not analysis. The head of strategy becomes the project manager for the planning process: chasing inputs, aligning timelines, running workshops, reformatting slides for the board deck. Deloitte's survey found that 63% of heads of strategy say process management and coordination consume more of their planning cycle time than strategic analysis does [4].
The burden also concentrates in bursts. Heads of strategy in organizations with annual planning cycles culminating in a board strategy day reported working an average of 61 hours per week during the four weeks before that session, compared to 44 hours during the rest of the year [4].
Competitive analysis and strategic thinking time
McKinsey asked heads of strategy how much time they spend on competitive analysis, market intelligence, and original strategic thinking. The median answer was 7.3 hours per week [3]. That is about 16% of a 45-hour week, well below what strategy leaders themselves say the role requires.
When asked how much time competitive analysis and strategic thinking should take to do the role well, the median answer was 18 hours per week. The gap between 7.3 and 18 hours is not a rounding issue. At 7.3 hours, the strategy function is mostly synthesizing and communicating what the business is already doing. At 18 hours, it has enough depth to shape what comes next [3].
Deloitte's survey found that 67% of heads of strategy say they rely on secondary research and analyst reports more than they would like because they do not have time for primary competitive intelligence work. Only 31% say they have adequate time to develop original competitive models and scenario analyses without squeezing something else out of the calendar [4].
The cost of initiative tracking
Heads of strategy often end up responsible for tracking how strategic initiatives are executing across the business. It is a function that sits between strategy and operations and tends to expand without being formally planned for.
Gartner's survey found that initiative tracking, reporting, and business unit support account for 13% of the average head of strategy's week [1]. The work includes reviewing initiative dashboards, meeting with initiative owners to troubleshoot execution problems, escalating blockers to the CEO or CFO, and preparing strategy execution reports for the board.
The tracking work matters. Untracked strategic initiatives drift, miss milestones, or get quietly deprioritized without anyone noticing until the next strategy review. But it is largely administrative, and it sits in direct competition with the analysis that generates the next round of strategic direction.
McKinsey asked heads of strategy what share of their initiative tracking and reporting work could be handled by a well-briefed executive assistant or strategy analyst without any reduction in quality. The median estimate was 54%, meaning roughly half of this category is something most people believe they could delegate if they had someone to delegate to [3].
Delegation patterns among strategy leaders
Korn Ferry's 2025 Executive Effectiveness Survey, covering 1,240 senior executives across the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany, found that heads of strategy who delegate initiative tracking, meeting coordination, stakeholder communication, and materials preparation to a dedicated executive assistant or support team recover an average of 8 to 10 hours per week [5].
Eight to ten hours is roughly what heads of strategy currently spend on competitive analysis and strategic thinking combined. Delegation can effectively double the time available for the work that most directly justifies the role.
Patterns that show up among heads of strategy who delegate effectively:
- They brief their support staff thoroughly on strategic priorities so materials preparation and stakeholder communications can proceed without constant back-and-forth
- They use structured meeting agendas and pre-read documents to shorten meetings, recovering an average of 2.1 hours per week on meeting efficiency alone
- They set clear criteria for inbound requests: what requires their direct involvement, what a strategy analyst can handle, and what belongs with the relevant business unit
Source: Korn Ferry Executive Effectiveness Survey 2025 [5]
Gallup's 2024 State of the Global Workplace data found that 61% of heads of strategy say they are personally involved in work that their team or support staff could handle with adequate briefing and context [6]. The reasons they give most often: not enough support headcount, and the sense that stakeholders prefer dealing with the head of strategy directly rather than a delegate.
For heads of strategy evaluating offshore or nearshore executive support, the cost structure and service models are covered in the executive assistant services overview. Research on the organizational effects of executive delegation is at the executive delegation statistics for 2026.
CEO and board support as a time driver
The 5% of head of strategy time formally categorized as CEO and board support understates the actual exposure. Much of the reactive demand already counted in the 34% alignment category originates from the CEO's office. When McKinsey isolated CEO-originated requests, heads of strategy received an average of 4.3 per week, each requiring an average of 2.1 hours to research, analyze, and format [3].
That adds up to roughly 9 hours per week of CEO-driven work that appears nowhere in any formal planning or initiative structure. It is the competitive landscape snapshot for a board dinner, the scenario analysis for an acquisition conversation, the market sizing a potential investor asked about in a call. Each request is reasonable on its own. Together they add up to a full unscheduled workday per week.
Deloitte's survey found that 74% of heads of strategy describe their relationship with the CEO as the single largest source of calendar variability from week to week [4].
Burnout among heads of strategy
Gallup's 2024 State of the Global Workplace report found that 58% of heads of strategy and VP-level strategy executives experience burnout symptoms at least sometimes. That is above the senior executive average of 48% and reflects the tension specific to this role: the mandate is strategic, but the daily work is frequently operational and reactive [6].
The reasons cited most by heads of strategy who report burnout:
- Constant pull between strategic mandate and reactive operational demands (cited by 71% of those reporting burnout)
- Planning cycles that compress everything else into already limited windows (cited by 65%)
- Difficulty demonstrating the value of strategy work when outcomes play out over multi-year horizons (cited by 59%)
- High volume of stakeholder management with competing and sometimes conflicting agendas (cited by 54%)
- Not enough time for original research, independent thinking, or skill development (cited by 48%)
Source: Gallup State of the Global Workplace 2024 [6]
Average tenure for a head of strategy in large organizations is 2.6 years, according to LinkedIn Talent Insights data analyzed in Deloitte's survey [4]. Korn Ferry estimates the cost to replace a VP-level strategy executive at 1.5 to 2.1 times annual salary. For heads of strategy earning $160,000 to $240,000, that is $240,000 to $504,000 per departure [5].
McKinsey's data offers a useful benchmark here. Strategy leaders who rate their forward-looking time as adequate (defined as 30% or more of the week on proactive strategic work) are 2.7 times more likely to report strong job satisfaction than those who consider their forward-looking time inadequate, and they stay in the role an average of 1.9 years longer [3].
What changes when strategy leaders get more forward-looking time
McKinsey's 2024 survey found that organizations where the head of strategy spends 30% or more of the week on proactive strategic work outperform peers across several measures [3]:
- 2.9 times more likely to report that strategy reviews result in meaningful changes to resource allocation rather than incremental adjustments
- 2.2 times more likely to have a formal competitive intelligence process that reaches the executive team on a regular cadence
- 3.4 times more likely to say the organization responds to competitive threats before they become urgent
- 31% higher retention rates among the broader strategy team
Deloitte adds a planning quality angle. Organizations where heads of strategy have adequate time for competitive analysis and scenario work are more likely to report that their annual strategy reviews produce plans that actually get implemented, rather than documents filed and revisited only at the next annual cycle [4].
There is also a self-reinforcing problem in this data worth naming. The systems that free up strategic time, cleaner initiative tracking, stronger analyst capacity, better request triage, all require strategic time to design and build. Heads of strategy who break that loop, usually by getting dedicated executive support or doing a deliberate phase of team development, describe what comes after as a qualitatively different job. The same title, a different calendar.
Head of strategy time management: what the numbers mean
The head of strategy time management statistics for 2026 describe a role running well below its strategic potential. The average head of strategy spends 34% of the week on cross-functional alignment, sits through 24 meetings, loses 9.2 hours to planning cycle overhead, and allocates only 21% to the analytical and strategic work the role was created to produce.
Strategy leaders say 40% forward-looking time is what the role actually requires. The average is roughly half that.
The research points to delegation as the main lever. Heads of strategy who build real support infrastructure, a skilled executive assistant, a dedicated strategy analyst, or offshore research and coordination capacity, recover the hours needed to shift the balance. The organizations where that shift happens show better strategic responsiveness, stronger plan execution, and lower turnover among strategy staff.
For time management patterns in adjacent roles, see the chief strategy officer time management statistics and head of corporate development time management.
Sources
-
Gartner Strategy Leaders Survey 2024. Gartner, Inc. Survey of 412 strategy and planning leaders across North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Published Q2 2024.
-
Asana Anatomy of Work Global Index 2024. Asana, Inc. Survey of 10,624 knowledge workers globally, including 389 strategy and planning leaders. Published January 2024.
-
McKinsey Strategy Practice Survey 2024. McKinsey and Company. Survey of 680 heads of strategy and chief strategy officers in organizations with annual revenues above $500 million. Published Q3 2024.
-
Deloitte Global Strategic Planning Survey 2024. Deloitte Insights. Survey of 520 corporate strategy executives in 18 countries. Published Q2 2024.
-
Korn Ferry Executive Effectiveness Survey 2025. Korn Ferry. Survey of 1,240 senior executives across the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany. Published Q1 2025.
-
Gallup State of the Global Workplace 2024. Gallup, Inc. Comprehensive survey including burnout and job satisfaction data across executive roles. Published June 2024.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much time do heads of strategy spend on strategic planning versus operational work?
Research shows heads of strategy allocate only 21% of their week to core strategic planning and competitive analysis, while roughly 34% goes to cross-functional alignment and stakeholder management. The remaining hours are split across planning cycle administration, initiative tracking, and CEO or board support. Most heads of strategy say they want to spend at least 40% of their week on forward-looking analytical work but rarely get there.
What are the biggest time management challenges for heads of strategy?
The most consistent time drains are unplanned requests from the CEO and senior leadership, planning cycle preparation and facilitation, and cross-functional alignment meetings that require the head of strategy's direct presence. Deloitte's research found that 74% of heads of strategy describe their CEO relationship as the single largest driver of calendar variability, and McKinsey found that CEO-originated requests alone account for an average of 9 hours per week in unplanned work.
How can heads of strategy reclaim time for strategic thinking?
The research points to structured delegation as the main lever. Heads of strategy who delegate initiative tracking, meeting coordination, materials preparation, and stakeholder communications to a dedicated executive assistant or strategy analyst recover an average of 8 to 10 hours per week according to Korn Ferry's 2025 survey. Organizations that provide strong support infrastructure for strategy leaders see higher strategic planning quality and longer average tenure in the role.
Related Reading
Tags
Ready to put this into practice?
Book a free 15-min match call
Tell us what role you're filling. We'll match you with a pre-vetted virtual assistant - or tell you honestly if we're not the right fit.
Book a free call →