Robin Speculand wrote, “The biggest challenge in leadership is not the strategy — it’s driving execution.”
That line has stayed with me for years. Because if there’s one thing I’ve learned from leading teams, driving change, and sitting through countless strategy presentations, it’s this — vision is easy to fall in love with, but execution is where leadership either lives or dies.
We often glorify strategy. It feels elegant, cerebral, forward-looking. There’s a certain energy that comes with presenting a new vision — the slides look crisp, the objectives sound inspiring, and everyone nods enthusiastically.
But the truth is, most frustration in organisations doesn’t come from what leaders want to achieve. It comes from the gap between the vision drawn at the top and the reality faced by those tasked to make it happen.
I’ve seen this dynamic play out in meetings, project reviews, and daily operations. Subordinates often say, “The boss wants this and this,” while quietly figuring out how to make it happen. I’ve been there myself.
I once had a boss who told me, “Why are you telling me these problems? You should be solving them yourself. That’s what you’re paid for. If I have to solve this with you, I don’t need you.”
That moment never left me. It revealed something uncomfortable — that many leaders have grown so focused on the destination that the route has become invisible. As long as the numbers look good, milestones are ticked off, and the dashboards stay green, the messy, complex journey in between rarely enters the conversation.
At the top, what gets airtime are strategy decks, KPIs, and the “what” and “why.” But the “how” — the space where people wrestle with real obstacles — quietly fights its battles off the record.
Speculand calls this the “execution gap.” He argues that two-thirds of strategies fail not because they’re poorly designed, but because they’re never properly implemented.
I see this in almost every organisation. Beautifully worded strategies that live on PowerPoint slides but never translate into meaningful change. The assumption is that once direction is set, execution will “somehow” follow.
Truth is, it doesn’t.
Execution requires more than intent — it requires infrastructure, rhythm, and courage. It’s not glamorous work. It’s not about high-level visioning, but about navigating constraints, managing dependencies, and facing the uncomfortable truth that not everything planned on paper fits the real world.
And yet, in many boardrooms, execution is treated as an administrative concern rather than a leadership discipline.
Speculand’s Beyond Strategy describes the “chasm” that exists between strategy design and strategy delivery. The design stage is filled with optimism — it’s about ideas, possibilities, and ambition. The delivery stage, however, deals with fatigue, resistance, and friction.
That chasm doesn’t exist because people don’t care. It exists because the system doesn’t make space for honest struggle. The operational difficulties — the trade-offs, the bottlenecks, the imperfect adjustments — rarely make it into executive updates.
And why would they? No one wants to be the bearer of bad news.
We tell ourselves that good leadership means staying positive, moving forward, showing confidence. But when that confidence turns into avoidance of the hard truths, execution silently dies.
In my own experience, I’ve seen brilliant strategies fade into silence — not because of incompetence or apathy, but because there was no structure to sustain momentum. No cadence of review. No space for the “how.”
Here’s the uncomfortable reality: many leaders don’t actually want to hear about the struggle.
They want progress updates, not problems. They want dashboards that tell them everything is on track. They want to know that the machine is running — even if the people inside it are running on fumes.
It’s not because they don’t care. It’s because they’ve been conditioned to focus on outcomes.
Somewhere along the way, leadership became synonymous with control, oversight, and optics — the illusion that if everything looks neat, then everything must be fine.
But execution is never neat. It’s iterative, messy, and deeply human.
Speculand’s idea of “execution excellence” challenges this illusion. He says that execution is not just about discipline; it’s about designing systems that allow people to do their best work — systems that make it easier to act, measure, and adapt.
Speculand calls this shift developing a disciplined execution mindset — the move from saying “We’ve designed a strategy” to “We’re executing one.”
It sounds simple, but it requires a radical shift in how leaders think.
Instead of asking, “Are we aligned on strategy?” they must ask, “Are we aligned on how we’ll deliver it?”
Because execution lives in the how.
I’ve seen leaders, myself included, focus heavily on defining the vision while underestimating the grind of making it real. We talk passionately about innovation, transformation, or culture-building — but seldom ask the practical questions that matter most:
- Do our systems support this?
- Are people equipped to deliver it?
- What needs to change operationally to make it real?
These questions sound tactical, but they’re profoundly strategic. They determine whether the vision lives or dies.
Recently, I attended an interview with a Japanese factory and at the end of the interview came the usual question from the interviewer, “Do you have any question for us?”
I asked them, “In all your transformation initiatives, how do you ensure the execution is smooth sailing?”
Their answer, “The Japanese call it genchi genbutsu — “go and see for yourself.” Our leaders’ pride in doing the job off-screen, they don’t just review reports; they go to the factory floor to see how the work really happens. They understand that the truth of execution lives in the details, not in the PowerPoint decks.”
Their answers wow-ed me!
Leadership isn’t about staying above the details — it’s about staying connected to the reality of those who bring your strategy to life.
When leaders don’t “go and see,” they create a culture where bad news is filtered, problems are hidden and learning stops.
And that’s when the execution engine breaks down.
Speculand describes this as losing the “Strategy Cadence” — the rhythm that keeps execution alive. When that rhythm disappears, so does focus. Initiatives start strong but fade out quietly. Meetings become updates, not discussions. Energy drains out of the system.
In my experience, execution fails not because people lack will, but because they lack rhythm.
Teams move from one task to another, chasing deadlines without stepping back to review, recalibrate, or realign. Leaders, pressed for results, skip the hard conversations and jump straight to reporting.
Speculand’s idea of a Review Rhythm speaks directly to this — establishing regular, structured conversations around progress, not just performance. It’s not about micromanaging; it’s about creating accountability and continuity.
Because execution thrives on dialogue, not directives.
When teams are invited to ask “How can we make this work?” instead of just “What should we do?” they begin to take ownership. They move from compliance to commitment.
That’s when execution becomes a living process, not a checklist.
When subordinates say, “It’s too vague,” or “We don’t have enough resources,” those aren’t excuses — they’re signals.
They signal that the strategy hasn’t yet become operationally real. That somewhere, the translation layer has failed.
Good leaders listen to those signals. Not to react, but to understand where the system is breaking down.
In that sense, leadership isn’t about demanding flawless execution — it’s about designing the conditions for it to thrive. It’s about creating an environment where problems surface early, where clarity replaces assumption, and where accountability is shared, not imposed.
Speculand’s work reminded me that execution isn’t about doing more; it’s about doing less, better.
Leaders often fall into the trap of launching too many initiatives, spreading teams thin across competing priorities. But true execution excellence comes from focus — choosing a few high-impact priorities and pursuing them relentlessly.
When leaders simplify the agenda, teams gain clarity. When they create structure, teams gain confidence. And when they model discipline, teams gain rhythm.
That’s when execution becomes part of the organisation’s DNA, not just another management cycle.
As someone who thrives on structure and process, I’ve learned that real transformation doesn’t live in PowerPoint decks — it lives in behaviours, systems, and consistent follow-through.
Whenever I roll out a new brief or initiative, I ground myself with three simple questions:
- How clear is the execution path for my team?
- What support do they need to make this real?
- How will we know we’re making progress?
Those three questions have become my personal execution compass.
They remind me that leadership isn’t about commanding outcomes; it’s about enabling them. It’s not about setting direction and stepping back — it’s about walking with your people until the destination is reached.
Because in the end, strategy is the choice. Execution is the action.
Robin Speculand’s Excellence in Execution reminded me that organisations rarely fail because they lack vision. They fail because leaders underestimate the grind of making that vision real.
Strategy might inspire — but execution transforms.
Leave a Reply