37 - Operating the Business of Delivery: Team, Task, Traffic, and Trouble
- Jennifer Diamond
- Apr 30
- 5 min read
Updated: May 4
How Leaders Keep Execution on Track Without Micromanaging
Introduction: Leadership Isn’t Just Strategy—It’s Execution
Many leaders think of execution as something they delegate—a set of tasks to be handled by project managers or operations teams while they focus on big-picture strategy.
They set the vision.
They communicate goals.
They trust their teams to handle the details.
But the reality? Execution often falls apart in the gaps between leadership and delivery.
Teams get stuck in traffic—too many competing priorities, unclear workflows, or misalignment across functions.
Task ownership becomes murky—work gets delayed not because people are lazy, but because decisions aren’t clear.
Issues escalate into full-blown trouble before leadership even realizes something’s off.
To run a high-performing, execution-focused organization, leaders need to treat delivery like a business operation—not just an afterthought.
So how do you keep delivery on track without micromanaging? It starts with four critical areas:
Team – Who’s responsible for what?
Task – What exactly needs to be done?
Traffic – How do we prioritize work across competing demands?
Trouble – How do we identify and remove roadblocks before they derail execution?
Let’s break them down.
Step 1: Team—Clarifying Who Owns What (Before Chaos Takes Over)
One of the biggest execution failures comes from unclear ownership.
A project is stalled—but no one’s sure who has the authority to move it forward.
Two teams assume the other is handling an issue—so no one does.
A leader announces a priority—but people don’t know how it fits into their actual work.
Delivery suffers when responsibility is scattered.
How to Fix It: Define Team Roles Beyond Job Titles
Leadership isn’t just about assigning work—it’s about clarifying roles in execution.
Who is accountable for the outcome? (Not just "involved"—who actually owns success or failure?)
Who provides input? (And when does their input actually matter?)
Who makes the final call? (Decisions often get delayed because people aren’t sure who has decision rights.)
Example: The "Invisible Work" That Stalled Execution
A healthcare company was rolling out a new patient management system.
IT owned the technical implementation.
Operations owned the workflow design.
Compliance needed to review for legal risks.
But no one owned adoption.
The system was launched, but staff weren’t trained effectively.
The rollout date passed, but no one was responsible for monitoring usage.
Leadership assumed the transition was happening—but in reality, teams were still using old methods.
Fixing the issue wasn’t about assigning more work—it was about assigning the right ownership.
Leadership Reflection:
Have I clearly defined who owns what in execution, beyond job titles?
Do my teams know when they are decision-makers vs. when they are contributors?
When issues arise, do people know who has the authority to resolve them?
Step 2: Task—Getting Clear on What "Done" Actually Means
Another silent execution killer? Task ambiguity.
A team is given a priority, but the scope is vague—so they waste time defining it themselves.
A deliverable is partially completed, but the leader expected something different.
Work is happening—but it’s not aligned with what leadership actually envisioned.
Clear leadership direction isn’t just about setting goals—it’s about defining success.
How to Fix It: Define “Done” Before Work Starts
Be Explicit About Success Criteria
Instead of “We need a new onboarding process,” clarify: “We need a process that reduces new hire ramp-up time by 30% and includes digital self-serve elements.”
Check for Gaps Before Execution Begins
Ask teams: “What questions do you have before you start?”—not after they’ve already spent two weeks working on assumptions.
Align on What’s Measured
If success is based on completion, teams may rush to finish tasks without quality control.
If success is based on impact, teams may overanalyze instead of shipping fast.
Leaders need to define what matters most for execution.
Example: The Vague Goal That Wasted Three Months
A global sales team was tasked with “improving customer engagement.”
Marketing launched a newsletter series.
Sales launched a loyalty discount program.
Customer support sent out surveys.
Each team thought they were executing—but nothing was aligned.
Leadership hadn’t defined whether "engagement" meant retention, response rates, or revenue impact.
Each team’s efforts worked in silos rather than toward a common goal.
Three months in, leadership had activity—but not results.
Fixing it wasn’t about more effort—it was about defining success upfront.
Leadership Reflection:
Do I assume people know what “done” looks like—or do I clearly define it?
Before teams start work, do they understand how success will be measured?
When reviewing progress, do we focus on outcomes, not just activity?
Step 3: Traffic—Prioritizing Work Without Overloading Teams
Even when roles and tasks are clear, competing priorities can still derail execution.
Leadership announces too many priorities at once—teams scramble to execute everything.
Urgent tasks override important but long-term initiatives.
Employees feel stuck in "traffic jams"—where they’re busy but progress is slow.
Execution suffers when leaders fail to manage the flow of work.
How to Fix It: Align Priorities Across Teams
Define What’s Truly Critical.
If everything is urgent, nothing is. Leaders must differentiate between critical vs. nice-to-have priorities.
Create Visibility on Workload.
Leadership should know who’s at capacity and who has room to take on more.
Set "Stop Doing" Rules.
When new priorities emerge, old ones must be deprioritized or removed.
Leadership Reflection:
Do I set too many priorities at once, overwhelming execution?
Does my team have visibility on what’s truly urgent vs. what can wait?
Are we structured to eliminate bottlenecks instead of creating new ones?
Step 4: Trouble—Catching Issues Early Instead of Reacting Late
Execution rarely fails because of one big issue—it collapses under small problems that were ignored too long.
Teams feel blocked but hesitate to escalate issues.
Leaders only hear about problems when it’s too late to fix them easily.
Small misalignments compound into costly delays.
Great leaders create early warning systems.
How to Fix It: Create Rapid Escalation Channels
Normalize Early Reporting
Teams should feel safe saying: “We’re hitting a problem”—before it’s a crisis.
Set Up Fast Checkpoints
Weekly “trouble scans” prevent issues from going unnoticed.
Remove Blame Culture
Execution fails faster when people fear reporting challenges.
Leadership Reflection:
Does my team escalate problems early, or only when they become crises?
Have I created a culture where trouble is addressed quickly, not hidden?
Final Thought: Great Execution Is Designed, Not Assumed
Teams deliver best when roles, tasks, and priorities are clear.
Execution improves when leaders manage traffic effectively.
Problems get solved faster when issues are escalated early.
Because great leaders don’t just set strategy—they create the conditions for execution to thrive.
This post is part of Maypop Grove’s Leadership Evolution Series—a collection of in-depth reflections on leadership, influence, and strategy. Designed for leaders navigating complexity, this series explores how to drive change, build resilient teams, and lead with confidence.
©2025 Maypop Grove, LLC. All rights reserved.
Comments