Band-Aid Test for Execution Problems
Use recurring delivery failures to find the real organizational cause
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 94%
The Band-Aid Test distinguishes genuine execution failures from deeper organizational problems. Start with the recurrence signal: if a process fix worked briefly and the same issue returned, the fallen band-aid suggests the diagnosis was too shallow. First test concrete execution causes such as obsolete infrastructure or a mismatch between the skills required and the people assigned. If those do not explain the pattern, examine strategy: teams without a shared direction will create locally sensible but incompatible priorities. Then inspect culture and incentives, especially whether managers are punished for helping another team at the expense of their own OKRs. Finally assess interpersonal friction between accountable leaders. Fix the supported root cause rather than adding another review, sync, or escalation path, and retain organizational memory so the next recurrence is recognized as evidence rather than treated as a new problem.
Origin
As a leader and coach, Doshi noticed overwhelmed managers repeatedly solving delivery problems with new meetings and processes. Cross-team misalignment often persisted because the real cause was unclear strategy, conflicting incentives, or friction between managers. He uses the image of a band-aid falling off as the diagnostic signal.
Core principles
- 01Recurring execution symptoms usually point below the process layer
- 02Infrastructure and skill gaps can be genuine execution causes
- 03Missing strategy creates incompatible local priorities
- 04Incentives can make company-wide cooperation irrational
- 05Interpersonal friction needs coaching, not another meeting
- 06A fallen band-aid is diagnostic evidence
How to run it
- 1
Establish whether the symptom recurs
Document the execution problem and the fixes already attempted. If the same team conflict, delay, or surprise keeps returning after a process change, treat recurrence as evidence of a deeper cause.
Pro tip Compare the current issue with decisions from the previous three months before inventing a new fix.
Watch out Short organizational memory makes an old failed band-aid look like a new solution.
- 2
Test genuine execution causes
Check whether infrastructure can support the required scale and whether the assigned people have the relevant skills. These are concrete execution causes that should be solved directly.
Pro tip Include role-fit, such as assigning a zero-to-one PM to a mature scaling initiative, in the skill-gap check.
Watch out Do not force every problem into a strategy or culture explanation.
- 3
Inspect strategy clarity
Ask whether the teams share priorities, understand what to do when reality changes, and are pursuing compatible strategies. Misaligned OKRs may be downstream of missing strategy rather than poor coordination.
Pro tip Look for recurring arguments about small resource swaps and feature dependencies as a clue that the strategic tie-breaker is missing.
Watch out More frequent priority reviews cannot substitute for a clear strategy.
- 4
Inspect culture and incentives
Test whether the organization says teams should cooperate while performance systems reward only local OKR completion. If helping the company harms a manager's review, the culture is producing the misalignment.
Pro tip Examine what actually gets rewarded, not only the values the company states.
Watch out A request for collaboration will not override a credible personal penalty.
- 5
Inspect interpersonal friction
Determine whether the responsible managers simply struggle to work together. Coach one or both through the differences instead of routing every interaction through a new process.
Pro tip Observe the relationship directly rather than inferring it only from project artifacts.
Watch out A standing meeting can institutionalize friction without resolving it.
- 6
Fix the cause and watch the pattern
Apply the smallest intervention that addresses the deepest supported cause, then monitor whether the original symptom returns. Preserve the diagnosis and result so future leaders do not repeat failed band-aids.
Pro tip Retire process overhead when the underlying cause no longer requires it.
Watch out Declaring the root cause without observing the post-fix pattern is premature.
In the wild
Two dependent teams miss their OKRs and appear misaligned. Leaders add priority reviews and manager one-on-ones, but meetings remain stuck on feature dependencies and engineer swaps. The deeper issue is that nobody has clarified the strategy, priorities, or response to changing reality, so each team's local plan is reasonable but incompatible.
→ Clarifying strategy removes the source of repeated alignment work instead of adding another coordination layer.
One team could help another for the benefit of the company, but doing so would cause it to miss its own OKRs and expose its manager to a poor performance review. Syncs cannot solve the problem because the incentive system makes cooperation personally costly.
→ Changing the performance expectation addresses the cultural cause of misalignment.
Engineers without experience in the required technology or scale are assigned to the work, or a PM who excels at zero-to-one creation is placed on a mature scaling initiative. In this case, the capability mismatch itself can explain slow or unreliable execution.
→ Training, staffing, or reassignment directly targets a genuine execution cause.
Common mistakes
Adding a meeting before diagnosing the cause
A new review process can temporarily hide misalignment while strategy, incentives, or relationships keep recreating it.
Forgetting the last failed fix
When organizational memory is short, leaders repeat the same class of band-aid and mistake activity for learning.
Denying genuine execution constraints
Old infrastructure and capability gaps really can cause delivery failures. The diagnostic must test them rather than assuming every issue is cultural.
Is it for you?
Best for
Leaders in capable, fast-growing organizations where the same coordination or delivery problem keeps returning.
Not ideal for
One-off failures with an obvious technical defect or a clearly demonstrated skill gap that can be corrected directly.
From the episode
Shreyas Doshi on pre-mortems, the LNO framework, the three levels of product work, why most execution problems are strategy problems, and ROI vs. opportunity cost thinking