We don't have an insight problem. We have an execution problem.

We don't have an insight problem. We have an execution problem.

Sentences I've been hearing ever since I started working on change. From researchers, executives, politicians.

And inside, something keeps shouting: "Then do it differently!"

I'm someone who asks leadership to act.
That made me uncomfortable in organizations. Especially with the people who didn't want to risk anything themselves.

When I was still inside a large corporation, I had a reputation as a rebel.
Not because I was against things.
But because I took sentences seriously that others read as rhetoric.

When, for example, the ownership culture was introduced, I wrote an email directly to the board. With concrete proposals.
The feedback I was told about later: I had apparently taken a bit too large a sip from the ownership bottle.

At the time, I took it as a joke.
Today I know it was a diagnosis. Not of me. Of the organization.

In the years after, I kept asking leadership to lead. To back people up.
And when, after many attempts, I realized I wasn't going to get that backing — I left.

That shapes how I look at organizations today.

The board member and the silent second

A few weeks ago, a board member sat across from me.

He said: "We have the right people. We have the right strategy. We've been talking about change for two years. And nothing moves."

I asked: "Whom did you promote? Which behavior did you reward?"

He thought about it. Then he fell silent mid-sentence.

The ones who got promoted in his area were those who, in every discussion, immediately knew why something wouldn't work.
The ones who analyzed cleverly.
The ones who named the risks before others saw them.
The ones who could frame complexity so precisely that, in the end, someone else had to change for things to work.

The know-it-alls got promoted.

Why the system stays the way it is

In many organizations, this is the pattern.
And so everything stays the way it is.

Most people know what isn't working. They know why.
Still, little moves.

Because organizations reward good explaining.
Not effective action.

They promote those who frame complexity with confidence.
Not necessarily those who take responsibility for actually making things better.

The part rarely discussed

Know-it-alls are often more pleasant for leadership.

Not because they demand less.
But because they keep leadership in the realm of language.

The know-it-all says: "It's complex."
The do-it-better says: "And what do we decide now?"

The know-it-all demands attention.
The do-it-better demands a mandate, a priority, a consequence — and your backing when things get political.

That's why do-it-betters rarely get promoted.
Not because they're difficult.
But because promoting them would put you under tension.

Suddenly you would have to decide who loses influence.
Suddenly you would have to publicly stand behind someone whose conflicts become uncomfortable.
Suddenly people would ask whether what you say about change also holds when it costs you something.

The know-it-all has two faces

One dismantles every idea through objection.
The other occupies every idea through an instant answer.
Both look competent. Both prevent anything new from emerging.

The objection know-it-all slows things down through cleverness.
The answer know-it-all slows things down through over-confidence.
"I know this area, here's how we do it …" — and the space of possibility has closed before it had a chance to open.

Both get promoted.
Because both radiate certainty. One the certainty of precise analysis, the other the certainty of a quick solution.

And both relieve leadership of having to deal with openness.

The sentence that stayed with me

The board member I told you about ended with a sentence that has stayed with me.

He said: "I promoted the ones who unburdened me. Not the ones who challenged me."

That is the real question.

Not: Who understood the problem best.
But: Whom — and which behavior — will you promote next?