Summary: Execution gaps stem from broken systems, toxic culture, or leadership failures—not people capability. Diagnose the root cause before hiring or shuffling team members.
Core Answer:
- Execution gaps occur at the intersection of three forces: people, systems, and culture
- One toxic person on a team of six can reduce productivity of others by up to 50%
- Leadership is the #1 factor contributing to team morale and execution capability
- Use the Readiness and Willingness Framework to assess capability and attitude before concluding someone can’t execute
After 35 years of consulting with teams across 30 countries, leaders tell me the same story: “Ken, my team is brilliant at ideas and relationships, but execution? We just can’t get anything done.”
My first response? Let’s pause for a moment. Before you hire an execution superstar, let’s explore what most leaders miss—execution gaps are often quite different from what they appear to be on the surface.
Why Execution Gaps Are Misdiagnosed
Think about how doctors work—they diagnose before they prescribe. The same principle applies to execution gaps.
Execution could mean a hundred different things—follow-through, meeting deadlines, turning strategy into action. Until you define what execution means in your context, you’re treating symptoms without understanding the disease.
Here’s what I’ve discovered after working with everyone from Fortune 50 companies to small family businesses: in the vast majority of cases, execution gaps aren’t just a people problem.
What Are the Three Forces That Impact Execution?
Execution happens at the intersection of three forces—people, systems, and culture.
People bring their natural strengths, readiness, and willingness. When we assess teams using our Job Style Indicator, we’re looking at whether the nature of the person fits the nature of the position. But even with the right people, broken systems sabotage them.
Systems either support or sabotage execution. I worked with a dealership where salespeople couldn’t make follow-up calls—the owner only had two phone lines. We added more lines, and the “execution problem” disappeared.
Culture determines whether people feel supported or punished when taking initiative. In my experience, most execution failures involve all three layers working against each other—capable people trapped in broken systems within cultures that punish risk-taking.
Execution gaps cost companies $2 trillion annually, with most companies executing only 3 in 10 strategies.
Key insight: In my experience, most execution failures involve all three layers working against each other—capable people trapped in broken systems within cultures that punish risk-taking.
How Does Toxicity Impact Team Execution?
Sometimes your execution gap might be because you’re tolerating someone who’s undermining everyone else’s ability to execute.
Research shows one toxic person on a team of six can reduce the productivity of the other five by up to 50%. That’s catastrophic.
A CEO recently fired a toxic team member after much hesitation. The moment that person left, the energy shifted—like a weight lifted off everyone’s shoulders.
Harvard research reveals avoiding toxic workers generates returns of nearly two-to-one compared to hiring a superstar. They drive other employees to leave faster and diminish productivity across the board.
Critical point: Toxic individuals create execution gaps that appear to be capability problems but are actually toxicity problems.
Why Do Execution Problems Always Trace Back to Leadership?
Here’s something I’ve observed in my work with leaders: in most cases, execution problems trace back to leadership in some way.
We did a large study that asked: what’s the number one factor that contributes to morale in a work group? It was the supervisor or leader they reported to.
Low morale affects discipline, accountability, and execution. If your team isn’t executing, look at how leadership is showing up.
I just got a call from a Fortune 50 company with 400 demoralized employees. The number one frustration? Leaders are dictating changes without including team members. No dialogue, no consideration of impact. That’s not an execution gap—that’s a leadership gap.
The truth: The supervisor is the #1 factor contributing to morale, and low morale directly affects execution.
What Foundation Work Do Most Leaders Skip?
Think about building a skyscraper. You spend enormous time on a foundation nobody sees, then build 40 stories on top. Execution requires the same approach.
Before you implement anything, explain the vision: What are we doing? Why? What’s the benefit?
Then get feedback on concerns and perspectives. Spend time getting buy-in and agreement from people who will do the work. Only after this collaborative conversation do you implement.
Most leaders skip this and go straight to “make it happen.” Then they wonder why their team resists.
Foundation principle: Execution requires upfront collaborative work—explaining vision, getting feedback, and securing buy-in—because skipping this creates resistance and failure.
What Is the Readiness and Willingness Framework?
When evaluating whether someone can execute, assess two dimensions:
Willingness is a person’s attitude. Do they want to do this? Is the role a fit for their interests? It’s very difficult to sustain engagement if someone is fundamentally misaligned with the work.
A senior pastor once told me his leadership role was the three most miserable years of his life. He moved back to being an administrative assistant and thrived.
Readiness is capability. Have you trained them? Equipped them? Sometimes people fail because you threw them in the deep end without confirming they have the skills to fulfill what you’ve asked.
Before you conclude someone lacks execution strengths, I encourage you to assess both their willingness and readiness.
And consider this: sometimes you don’t need to hire new people. You orchestrate team development where members complement one another. Some people excel at initiating but struggle with follow-through. Others are excellent executioners in support roles. When you use tools like the Personal Style Indicator to understand behavioral preferences, you can strategically pair people so their strengths work together.
The framework: Assess willingness (attitude and fit) and readiness (capability and training) before concluding someone lacks execution strengths, because misalignment or lack of training often masquerades as inability.
The Diagnostic Approach
What I’ve observed is that leaders often overlook the comprehensive nature of execution. They tend to underestimate the front-end work required, sometimes overlook emotional impacts, and may not always diagnose thoroughly before prescribing solutions.
So my encouragement is to diagnose before you prescribe. Do a full review: Look at your systems. Examine your culture. Assess your leadership. Evaluate for toxicity. Understand readiness and willingness.
In the vast majority of cases I’ve seen, the execution problem isn’t primarily a people problem—it’s a systems problem, a culture problem, a leadership problem, or a combination of all three.
My encouragement: do the diagnostic work first. Ask the team why execution isn’t occurring. They have the truth and insight about what’s really happening.
Then you’ll know what to fix.
When you finally bring in someone with strong execution capabilities—someone whose nature fits the nature of the position—they’ll walk into an environment that supports rather than sabotages their natural strengths.
That’s when you create self-awareness that leads to self-management that leads to self-mastery.
That’s when execution actually happens.
That’s when your team can live and work on purpose.
Key Takeaways
- Diagnose before you hire: In most cases, execution gaps stem from broken systems, toxic culture, or leadership challenges rather than people problems
- The three-force model: Execution happens at the intersection of people, systems, and culture—address all three layers for best results
- Toxic impact is significant: One toxic person can reduce team productivity by up to 50%—addressing toxicity often creates more value than hiring superstars
- Leadership matters greatly: Research shows the supervisor is the #1 factor in team morale, which directly impacts execution
- Foundation work is critical: Invest in securing buy-in through collaborative conversation before implementation to increase success
- Assess readiness and willingness: Determine if people have both capability and the right attitude before concluding they can’t execute