A Process Is Not Necessarily Poor If Its Execution Is Errant

My thoughts on this LinkedIn post

Judging a process by its outcomes in organizations, teams, and even personal projects is common. When things go awry, the immediate instinct is often to blame the process itself. However, this overlooks a crucial distinction: a well-designed process can still yield poor results if executed improperly.

Consider a football play, American football. Each team member has a role to play. The play is orchestrated to achieve some objective, such as a first down or, more likely, a touchdown. If we called the wrong play given the defense matchup with our offense, the play may produce poor results. On the other hand, if the play was appropriate but our execution was inadequate, that would likely yield poor results. For example, we call a pass play, and a guard misses a key block, and the quarterback is sacked, with the receiver open.

The Difference Between Process and Execution

A process is a structured set of steps to achieve a specific goal. It represents the blueprint for action, incorporating best practices, logical sequences, and safeguards against common pitfalls. Execution, on the other hand, is the act of following that blueprint—how people carry out the steps in real time.

Even the most robust process can falter if those responsible for its execution misunderstand instructions, skip steps, or apply it inconsistently. Conversely, if executed with extraordinary diligence and adaptability, a mediocre process might sometimes deliver acceptable results, though this is rarely sustainable.

Why Good Processes Fail

There are several reasons why execution can undermine a good process.

Lack of Training: Team members may not fully understand the process, its rationale, or its objective.
Unclear Objective: I was a process manager in one of our product development capacities. For every documented process step, I started the document with the process objective, “Why are we doing the thing described in this process?”
Complacency: People may cut corners or develop bad habits over time.
Abandon during Stress: From experience, pressure can be applied to circumvent the process during trying times.
Resource Constraints: Time, tools, or personnel may be insufficient to execute the process as intended.
Communication Breakdowns: Misunderstandings can lead to steps being skipped or performed incorrectly. This includes each player’s responsibility and accountability regarding the process.

The Importance of Diagnosing the Real Problem

When outcomes are disappointing, leaders and teams should resist the urge to overhaul the process immediately. Updating the process requires an understanding of what has gone wrong. We can use measurements and tools like those associated with Total Quality Management and Six Sigma. Instead, they should ask:

Was the process followed as designed?
Were there deviations, and if so, why?
Do those executing the process have the necessary skills and resources?
Did the dependent or intermediate processes produce the required results? (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

A root cause analysis often reveals that the process was sound, but the execution was flawed. Addressing these execution gaps—through training, better communication, or resource allocation—can restore the process’s effectiveness.

Learning From Mistakes

This distinction is empowering. It means that not every failure requires reinventing the wheel. Sometimes, it’s about tightening discipline, clarifying expectations, or better supporting people. By separating the process from the execution, organizations can focus their improvement efforts on where they will have the most impact.

Conclusion

A process is not necessarily poor if its execution is errant. Judging a process solely by its outcomes, without examining how it was carried out, risks discarding valuable structures and lessons. The key is accurately diagnosing problems, distinguishing between plan and implementation flaws. Only then can we build systems—and teams—that consistently deliver success.