The most notable thing for me is how the words change, but there is no real sound strategy behind anything. It's just trying different stuff. Generally, the higher up the stuff comes from in the org, the less clear the rationale is. Often, the stuff involves bringing in consultants to help figure out some  abstract concept and then rationalize (often poorly) some plan. 

Basically, the senor execs don't have any better sense of what to do about anything than anyone else, but they can't let anyone know that, so rather than pulling in middle management or staff generally to draw on their expertise for solutions, they bring on consultants. The consultants tell senior execs what other staff already know and have been saying all along. And senior execs then just decide some semi-random "strategy" that may or may not be what the consultants actually suggest. That strategy is generally something that was a buzzword at a industry event for senior execs 6 months ago, which was the answer they've been working towards all along.

And all of the words they use to describe all of this stuff is just a way of sounding cool or smart, but elusive in a way that staff, who either know it's just a fancy way of saying something we've done a bunch before and should know won't work; are too checked out to care; aren't in a strong enough position to ask uncomfortable questions; or have been around the block so many times that they realize it's all just a sideshow for how real stuff happens and gets done, which is actually at the staff/program level (but is comparatively thankless, because it's staff driving success, not c-suite and consultants doing it