When execution starts to break down, the response is often focused on execution itself. Teams revisit workflows, add project management support, introduce new tools, automate steps, or ask people to move faster. Those responses can be appropriate, but they assume the problem originates where it becomes visible.
A delay during execution might originate from unclear decision authority. Rework might begin with incomplete intake or inconsistent requirements. A difficult handoff may reflect unclear ownership between functions. A process that appears inefficient may be compensating for a governance problem somewhere else.
This is why execution problems are useful signals, but incomplete diagnoses.
The location of the problem can be misleading
Consider a campaign that repeatedly stalls during approval. From the outside, it looks like an approval-process problem, so the natural response might be to shorten the workflow or remove steps.
But the underlying issue could be that decision authority has never been clearly established. Multiple stakeholders may believe they own the same decision, or teams may escalate routine decisions because the boundaries of their authority are unclear.
The approval process is where the problem becomes visible. It isn't necessarily where the problem begins.
This pattern appears elsewhere too. Technology can get blamed for manual work that actually results from inconsistent processes. Capacity can get blamed for delays created by rework. Individual teams can get blamed for coordination problems created by unclear cross-functional ownership.
Research from McKinsey points to this broader operating challenge. In its survey of 104 C-suite growth and marketing executives, the most commonly reported challenge among organizations with less mature marketing operating models was a siloed structure and lack of cross-functional collaboration.
Execution depends on more than process
Organizations often think about execution through workflows: what happens first, what happens next, who receives the work, and how quickly it moves.
But execution also depends on the operating conditions surrounding those workflows. Teams need to know what they own, which decisions they can make, when another function needs to be involved, and how priorities are resolved when demands compete.
When those conditions are unclear, organizations often compensate by adding meetings, approvals, documentation, escalation paths, and manual controls. Over time, those compensations can become part of the process itself.
What looks like process complexity may therefore be the accumulated response to problems somewhere else in the operating environment.
Follow the problem upstream
Diagnosing an execution problem requires looking beyond the point where work slowed down or failed. Where did the work originate? Were the requirements clear? Who owned the outcome? Who had authority to make the necessary decisions? Where did another team become dependent on the work? What caused it to be returned, escalated, or delayed?
Following those questions upstream can reveal whether the problem belongs to the workflow itself or whether the workflow is carrying the consequences of something else.
Where a problem appears and where a problem originates are not always the same place.
That distinction changes the intervention. A workflow problem may need a better process. An ownership problem may require clearer accountability. A decision problem may require different governance. A coordination problem may require clearer operating agreements between functions.
The point isn't to make every execution problem an operating-model problem. It's to establish what kind of problem the organization is actually dealing with before deciding how to fix it.
Fix the cause, not just the symptom
Execution problems deserve attention because they're often where operating friction becomes visible to leadership. But treating every delay, handoff problem, or instance of rework as an isolated execution issue can lead organizations to repeatedly optimize the surface while the conditions underneath remain unchanged.
The better question isn't simply, "How do we make this process faster?"
It's also, "What is causing this process to work this way?"
That question creates a different starting point for improvement.
Sources
McKinsey & Company — Connecting for growth: A makeover for your marketing operating model