Execution is about adaptation, not control
Why execution fails when organisations stop adapting
We like to think that execution is the rational part of organisational activity. Strategy sets the direction, and execution is just doing what needs to be done. However, this idea only makes sense in a stable and predictable world.
In reality, nothing is predictable enough to be neatly executed as planned. The context changes with every interaction, assumptions are challenged, and even the people involved interpret intent differently. Most execution challenges are not due to a failure of effort or competence. They are failures of adaptation.
The illusion of control
Leaders still treat execution as a control problem; they wrongly assume that providing specific details, tracking enough data, and holding people accountable to targets will yield results. But uncertainty does not yield to control. The more we try to predict every variable, the more rigid we become.
Real control comes from letting go of control, not from tightening control. Establishing coherence and unambiguous intent enables this.
Coherence is the shared orientation of what we are trying to achieve and why. It allows distributed parts of an organisation to move differently but still contribute to the same unifying intent.
Alignment is about agreement. Coherence is about orientation.
It is the ability for people to act locally in ways that remain strategically connected.
Execution as adaptation
Effective execution in organisations is a dynamic interplay of sensing, adjusting, and learning. Execution cannot be treated like a project tightly organising, every decision leading to delivery, but rather a living intention that interacts with its environment.
Every plan is a temporary hypothesis tested through action to see how our assumptions meet reality. What matters is how quickly an organisation observes and reorients when the context changes and adapts its response in line with intent and constraints.
This means shifting from a model of control to one of interaction. Plans become tools for coordination, not compliance. Command becomes guidance, not direction. Leaders set intent and boundaries, not step-by-step instructions. The focus moves from tracking performance and milestones to cultivating responsiveness.
Designing for agility
Execution is often seen as just a human problem, a lack of disciplined execution, but it is also shaped by how the organisation is constructed. People need structures that provide quick feedback, clarity of intent, and enough autonomy to act with confidence.
Agility is not about moving faster; it is the ability to adjust to new information or changing conditions without losing coherence or direction. This depends on three interconnected layers:
Cognitive agility – the ability to observe what is happening and reorient quickly.
Behavioural agility – the ability for teams to coordinate and change how they act when the situation demands it.
Structural agility – the organisational design that enables both, through feedback, transparency, and distributed decision-making.
When these layers reinforce each other, adaptation becomes part of how the organisation works. When they don’t, even small changes can turn into a crisis.
From control to coherence
Execution is often where strategy fails, not because people stop caring, but because the organisation stops learning. Leaders assume that what was decided remains valid, even as assumptions change. Effective execution is about holding intent steady while the landscape evolves.
To do that, leaders need to build a viable organisation. This includes:
Clear, unambiguous intent and boundaries that allow freedom within constraints.
Feedback loops that translate reality into learning, not just data.
Mechanisms for distributed coordination that enable teams to adapt locally without requiring permission.
When these conditions exist, execution emerges as a dynamic interaction with reality, not a battle against it.
The human element
At the heart of decentralised decision-making is trust. No system of feedback or structure works without the belief that people can and will act responsibly in uncertainty.
Trust is not naive. It is a strategic choice. It replaces detailed control with accountability through understanding. It allows people the freedom of action to move fast because they are trusted to make sense of what they see.
Leaders who cannot let go of control find themselves chasing their own organisations, always reacting to what others have already seen. Those who focus on coherence instead of compliance create teams that act with initiative, learn from feedback, and adjust without waiting for permission.
Execution is a living practice
Execution that survives contact with reality is not a checklist. It is a living practice of adaptation. It depends on designing organisations that learn as they act and act as they learn.
Plans still matter, but only as scaffolding for judgment. Strategy still matters, but only as a shared sense of direction, not a set of detailed instructions.
Execution is not about detailing decisions or how people should act. It is about creating the conditions where people can act with intent, learn from consequences, and adapt to what reality demands. That is how strategy survives contact with the inherent complexity of reality.
If you want to explore how to develop organisations that execute adaptively, get in touch.
