Why execution fails to get the result?

IN our previous article, we learned that most people can plan, but few can execute effectively to get the result. We have also discussed the knowing and doing gap. Many a time we know what we are supposed to do, but we don’t it. The knowing-doing gap is the distance between what you know you should do and what you actually do.

In this article, we turn our attention to the execution-outcome gap. Do you always get the result from what you do? If not, then your execution is ineffective.

Execution is what we do and outcome is what actually happens. The execution-outcome gap is the distance between work done and the desired result achieved. The execution-outcome gap is how far execution falls short of getting the desired result.

What causes the execution-outcome gap? One of the most common reasons for failing to get the result is that the things we do are not linked to producing the result. This can be due to an unclear objective or the fact that people just don’t know what they are doing. Many people do their job for the sake of doing it. They follow work procedure blindly without having an understanding on how their effort contributes to the desired results. If we don’t know what result we are going to achieve, then our effort is not going to be effective in getting the result. You may get comments from your subordinates: “We have followed the procedure”, “We have completed the checklist” or “I did what you told me”; but the underlying problems persist. This is execution-compliance, not execution to get the result.

Sometimes, we don’t get the result because we go off track while doing the work. There is no monitoring and checking on the progress of the work. There is a lack of feedback loop. Execution happens but there is no measurement of impact, no checking whether the action works or needs to be adjusted. Without feedback and a progressive monitoring process, we can just keep executing the wrong actions. This will not help us to achieve the result we want. Worse still, more effort needs to be put in to correct the wrong things and make them right, thus exacerbating the cost of execution and dwindling the bottom line.

Execution failing to achieve the desired results can be due to a lack of ownership and responsibility from the people carrying out the task. It is very convenient nowadays for bosses to give instructions via a WhatsApp chat group. The problem is that everybody reads or even acknowledges the message, but who should actually take the action? It is common in many organizations that tasks are assigned, but no one single person is held accountable for the outcome. Everybody is responsible for actions, no one for results. When there is no accountability, there is no responsibility. Many people are responsible for their own tasks, but no one is held answerable to see that the goal is finally achieved. This leads to a diffusion of responsibility, where the goal ultimately fails because everyone thought someone else would do the job.

How do we close the execution-outcome gap? First of all, we must define our outcome precisely. What are the KPIs? We must be able to see the end result so that we can make the right execution. Most executive-outcome gaps begin with vague or unclear desired results. Goals such as “improve service quality” or “enhance efficiency” are vague and unmeasurable. Improving service quality can mean reducing complaints by 50% by the end of the month or getting better results in the customer satisfaction survey. Which directions are we heading to in order to improve service quality? The goal must be clearly defined to get the right execution.

Once we have a clear outcome, we can design execution backwards from the results. We can ask ourselves “what must change for this result to happen?” and “what behaviours, conditions or decisions are blocking it now?” Once you have implemented a new strategy, get regular feedback to see if the new work process is working towards the goal. Provide regular feedback and make adjustments if and when necessary.

To be effective, you need to assign a single person to be responsible for the outcome. It is outcome ownership, and not task ownership. In task ownership, people would just follow procedure. People get busy doing the job; but if they don’t care about the outcome, they won’t care about whether or not they are doing the right thing. Outcome ownership is different. Outcome ownership makes sure that the problem gets resolved or the job gets done. One person must own the outcome, even if many execute the tasks. One simple test of outcome ownership is to ask the question: “Who feels uncomfortable if the result is not achieved?” If the answer is “everyone”, then no one owns it.

You close the execution-result gap by making results non-negotiable. Your execution must not be just mere activities beating around the bush; instead, it must be focused and directed solely towards getting the results so that you will not waste unnecessary resources for just being busy.