Where Execution Drifts
Great decisions don’t fail – they fade when Monday arrives.
Most strategies do not collapse. They loosen quietly.
A leadership team leaves a meeting aligned, energized, and certain about priorities. Then the week begins. New escalations appear, a customer issue flares, and senior leaders are pulled into crises. The original priority is still “important,” but it no longer feels urgent.
Nothing dramatic happens – which is the problem.
Execution softens in ordinary ways that rarely show up on dashboards. Meetings are shortened. Steps are skipped. Follow-through is delayed. Each slip feels minor in isolation; together, they create real performance risk.
What this looks like in real operations (COO-level example)
Consider a cross-functional handoff between Sales and Operations.
The intended process:
Sales closes a deal & completes a standard intake & Operations acknowledges within 24 hours & a kickoff call is scheduled & delivery begins.
What actually happens after a few busy weeks:
Some representatives complete the intake fully; others leave fields blank.
Operations occasionally picks up deals without formal acknowledgment.
Kickoff calls stretch from 24 hours to 72.
No one escalates because “nothing is broken.”
Three months later, delivery timelines are inconsistent, customer complaints rise, and leadership asks, “What went wrong?”
Nothing failed all at once. The process slowly softened.
That gradual erosion is execution drift – the core problem Executive Accountability must address.
How Leaders Shape Accountability
Leaders create reliability by shaping conditions, not policing people.
Traditional accountability focuses on individuals: Who missed the step? Who needs coaching? Who isn’t owning it?
That is the wrong starting point.
A better question is:
Are the conditions around our most critical work making follow-through easy or fragile?
Executive Accountability is not about tighter monitoring. It is about how leaders design work after decisions are made.
Three leadership choices that matter
1) Decide what must be stable – not just what must be achieved
Every organization has many goals. Leaders must identify a small set of execution areas that cannot wobble, such as:
- Customer handoffs
- Safety checks
- Revenue recognition steps
- Escalation paths
- Response-time commitments
If everything is labeled critical, nothing truly is.
2) Intervene earlier, but in fewer places
Without clear signals, leaders either step in too late or micromanage too much.
Better discipline looks like this:
- Let most execution run normally.
- Step in only when inconsistency appears in high-risk areas.
This is not about more control – it is about sharper focus.
3) Fix the environment, not the person
When a step is missed, the instinct is to ask, “Who made the mistake?”
A stronger response is, “What made this mistake reasonable?”
Was the process too complex?
Was the handoff unclear?
Was the timing unrealistic?
Executive Accountability builds reliability into how work is designed, rather than applying pressure after the fact.
Building Visibility and Reinforcement
Seeing drift is useful. Changing conditions is what stops it.
Leaders already have plenty of reports. What they often lack is a simple way to detect early signs that execution is softening before results deteriorate.
The goal is not more data – it is a clear system that connects three elements:
- Signal – early indicators that a critical step is becoming inconsistent
- Insight – a plain-English explanation of what that pattern means in practice
- Reinforcement – small changes that keep work on track
How this plays out in the Sales and Operations example
Signal:
Intake forms are increasingly incomplete on high-volume days.
Insight (plain English):
“When workload spikes, we cut corners on deal handoffs – which later creates delivery chaos.”
Reinforcement (not punishment):
- Make key intake fields mandatory before a deal can move forward.
- Add a simple reminder when a rep submits a deal late in the day.
- Require a lightweight acknowledgment step so Operations cannot bypass the process.
No speeches. No blame. Just better conditions.
Over time, execution becomes steadier – not because people tried harder, but because the system made the right behavior easier.
What this means for different leaders
For a COO:
You stabilize operations without personally controlling every detail.
For a CHRO:
You move beyond compliance-heavy controls toward alignment with how work actually happens.
For L&D Leaders:
Training becomes reinforced by workflow design, not treated as a one-time event.
What changes next week for a leadership team
Instead of asking:
“Did we hit the target?”
Leaders begin asking:
- “Where is our follow-through most fragile right now?”
- “Which steps are starting to get loose?”
- “What small change would make execution steadier?”
Strategies are won in the meeting room – but accountability is earned in the ordinary moments that follow.
Ready to close the strategy-execution gap?
