When “Good” Isn’t Defined, Work Slows Down
Most execution problems aren’t caused by lack of talent, but by unclear standards. This essay explores how defining “good” removes hesitation, reduces variation, and speeds up execution.
The Problem
Most execution problems are not caused by a lack of talent.
They are caused by ambiguity.
Teams hesitate not because they are unsure how to work,
but because they are unsure what good looks like.
When standards are unclear, capable people pause.
They second-guess decisions.
They escalate choices that should have been routine.
Leaders feel this drag immediately.
Quality varies.
Rework increases.
And the leader is pulled back into the work to resolve questions that should never have reached them.
This is not a motivation problem.
It is a definition problem.
The Shift
In the early twentieth century, hospitals faced a troubling reality.
Two surgeons could perform the same procedure,
in the same hospital,
with dramatically different outcomes.
Not because one was careless.
Not because one lacked training.
But because “good surgery” had never been clearly defined.
Basic expectations varied from surgeon to surgeon.
Hand hygiene was inconsistent.
Instrument preparation differed.
Sterile fields were optional.
Post-operative practices changed depending on who was on duty.
When complications occurred, no protocol had been violated.
There were no shared standards to violate.
The turning point did not come from better doctors.
It came from clearer definitions.
As hospitals began standardizing what preparation meant,
what cleanliness required,
and what acceptable procedure looked like,
outcomes stabilized.
Not because judgment improved,
but because judgment was no longer required for routine decisions.
Variation decreased.
Hesitation disappeared.
Execution became reliable.
What To Do: Define “Good” Before You Expect Consistency
1. Identify Where Judgment Is Being Used to Cover Ambiguity
When people ask for approval,
they are often compensating for unclear standards.
Look for areas where:
work is reviewed repeatedly
decisions are escalated unnecessarily
outcomes vary without explanation
These are signals that “good” has not been defined.
2. Replace Vague Expectations With Explicit Definitions
Standards are not values.
They are not aspirations.
They are clear descriptions of acceptable work.
Good standards answer questions like:
What does complete look like?
What level of quality is required?
What is acceptable variation, and what is not?
When these are explicit, judgment becomes easier.
When they are vague, judgment becomes risky.
3. Use Standards to Decentralize Decisions
Clear standards are not about control.
They are about trust.
When people know what good looks like,
they can act without fear of rework or reprimand.
Leaders regain time.
Teams gain confidence.
Execution speeds up naturally.
The Heartbeat
Execution slows when people are forced to guess.
Not because they lack capability,
but because the system asks them to make judgment calls it should have already resolved.
Undefined standards push decisions upward.
Defined standards push decisions outward.
January is the right time to do this work.
Direction sets the course.
Constraints define the boundaries.
Standards remove ambiguity inside the work.
Without them, even strong teams stall.
Next Step
Where in your operation is “good” still assumed instead of defined?