This is a recurring theme in PU’s report, Execution Effectiveness 2026, based on more than 40 confidential, in-depth conversations with senior leaders in Norwegian companies. The conversations suggest that better execution often starts with a more precise understanding of the problem.
The research is qualitative and not statistically representative. It identifies recurring patterns in leaders’ experiences, including how apparent shortages of capacity, slow decisions and stalled initiatives can have different underlying causes.
Why strategy execution gaps arise
The leaders interviewed described ambitions to grow, improve profitability, enter new markets, digitalise and build new capabilities. The challenge was often the distance between these ambitions and what their organisations were equipped to deliver.
Operational strength does not automatically prepare a business to integrate an acquisition, expand internationally or undertake substantial transformation. Roles, leadership capabilities and working arrangements that supported one phase may become less suited to the next.
One interviewed leader described a company that had doubled its revenue while retaining strong operational and technical expertise. Its development projects, however, had become larger and more complex. The expertise that supported its earlier success was no longer sufficient on its own for the next phase.
This changes how execution problems need to be understood. When an ambition depends on expertise the company does not possess, decisions it cannot make or people already fully occupied with daily operations, the gap may be built into the ambition itself.
The report distinguishes between execution capability, meaning the resources available, and execution effectiveness, meaning how those resources become action through decisions, ownership and follow-up. Having capable people and established systems does not necessarily mean they can be brought together effectively for a new task.
Diagnosing strategy execution problems
The conversations identify six connected areas where execution can break down: prioritisation, translating strategy into action, ownership and decision-making authority, capacity and expertise, person–role fit, and follow-up.
Because these areas interact, the visible problem can point towards the wrong response. An apparent shortage of people may reflect too many competing initiatives. Slow decisions may stem from unclear authority. Repeated communication may leave a strategy no closer to implementation if its practical implications remain undefined.
The report encourages leaders to investigate what is creating the constraint before choosing an intervention.
Setting priorities for effective execution
The interviewed leaders described a surplus of opportunities competing for limited time and attention. Customer requests, technology, market opportunities and improvement initiatives often depend on the same key people.
When new work is added without stopping or postponing existing commitments, activity can increase without corresponding progress.
One leader described how the company began systematically identifying activities it could stop, rather than focusing solely on new initiatives. This helped it concentrate on strategic priorities while also reducing costs.
The conversations reveal two different responses to capacity pressure. Some leaders focus on eliminating unnecessary work and reallocating resources. Others build additional capacity before growth or change makes the need urgent.
Both responses can be appropriate. The distinction is whether the organisation faces a genuine resource shortage or has spread its existing capacity across too many priorities. Additional hiring may leave a prioritisation problem unresolved.
How middle managers turn strategy into action
A strategic direction can be clear to the executive team while remaining difficult to apply elsewhere in the organisation.
The report describes middle managers as the connection between long-term direction and everyday decisions. Their task includes translating strategic priorities into choices for their teams and bringing practical constraints back to senior leadership.
Employees need to understand what their unit should do differently, what should receive less attention and what takes precedence when demands conflict.
Presenting a strategy does not, by itself, establish those choices. Where execution stalls, the issue may be less about the volume of communication and more about whether managers can translate direction into concrete responsibilities and actions.
Turning decisions into action
The interviews were conducted in Norway, where leadership practices often emphasise employee involvement and relatively flat hierarchies. This context matters when interpreting leaders’ accounts of the tension between consultation and timely decisions.
Broad involvement can improve decisions and strengthen commitment. It can also slow progress when it is unclear who needs to be consulted, who makes the final decision or when discussion should end.
One leader described introducing a decision log because it was not always clear whether a decision had been made or what, exactly, had been agreed.
The interviews suggest that hesitation is not always a personal leadership weakness. People may escalate decisions because their authority is unclear or they are uncertain whether a well-reasoned decision will be supported.
The broader issue is relevant across organisational cultures, although it may take different forms. Extensive consultation can blur decision ownership. More centralised decision-making can leave important operational perspectives unheard or those responsible for implementation unclear about what needs to happen.
A decision also needs someone accountable for turning it into results, with sufficient authority to act and a clear understanding of when to escalate.
The practical question is therefore how to make consultation, decision-making and delivery work together: who contributes, who decides and who is responsible for making it happen?
Recognising changing leadership requirements
Some execution gaps arise because the demands of a role have changed.
A leader who contributed strongly during one phase may need different capabilities, support or responsibilities as the business develops.
Assessing these changes can be difficult when loyalty, shared history and personal relationships influence leadership decisions.
Looking back, one leader felt that several leadership team changes should have happened sooner. Their history in the company and relationships with former colleagues had made it harder to assess the team against their new responsibilities as chief executive.
Replacement is not automatically the appropriate response. Clearer authority, capability development, additional support or role redesign may narrow the gap. In some cases, however, a mismatch remains between the role’s requirements and what the individual can or is willing to deliver.
Repeated structural changes can postpone that assessment if the underlying issue concerns person–role fit.
Measuring strategy execution outcomes
Completed projects, implemented systems and frequent meetings can demonstrate activity without showing improvements in profitability, customer value, quality or available capacity.
Leaders describing structured execution approaches focused on a small number of goals, clear accountability, regular progress reviews and explicit responses when results differed from expectations.
The relevant question extends beyond what has been completed to what has changed as a result.
Review frequency should reflect the pace of change and the consequences of detecting problems too late. Follow-up becomes useful when it leads to learning, decisions or adjustments.
Improving strategy execution through better diagnosis
The Norwegian leadership conversations suggest that strategy execution depends on understanding the organisation’s circumstances and responding to the actual constraint. More people, tighter control, additional communication or structural change may help in one situation while leaving another unresolved.
A useful diagnosis also considers whose perspective informs it. Senior executives, middle managers and employees may experience the same organisation differently.
Before deciding what to change, ask: What are we assuming is causing the problem and what evidence would make us reconsider?
For further insights and practical questions for leadership teams, read PU’s full report, Execution Effectiveness 2026.