The Action-Response Principle

The Formula That Explains Why Strong Execution Still Fails
V = A × R: Why value is multiplicative, not additive

Most leaders treat value as if it’s created through delivery alone.
Complete the project.
Launch the product.
Roll out the change.
The assumption is straightforward: if the work is done well, value will follow.
It doesn’t.

I’ve seen this play out repeatedly across organisations that execute exceptionally well. The capability is strong. The effort is real. The delivery is on time and on budget.
And yet, the outcomes remain underwhelming.
What’s missing isn’t commitment or competence.
It’s understanding.

Value doesn’t live in what you deliver.
Value lives in how what you deliver is experienced.
That insight changes everything.

Here’s the mechanism:
V = A × R
Value equals Action multiplied by Response.

Action is what you do.
The strategy you execute.
The service you provide.
The message you deliver.
The change you implement.
Action is necessary. It’s where most organisations focus their energy, and rightly so.
But action alone creates no value.

Response is how that action is received.
How it’s interpreted.
Whether it shifts behaviour, perception, or decision-making.
Whether it meets, exceeds, or falls short of expectation at the moment it lands.
Response completes the system.

What makes this consequential is the multiplication.
Not addition.
Multiplication.

Strong action paired with weak response doesn’t produce moderate value.
It produces almost none.
With Action = 10/10 and Response = 2/10 then Value = 20/100 (10 x 2 = 20).

In Real terms that is only 20% of potential value delivered.
You can execute flawlessly, but if the response is weak, value collapses.

Weak action paired with strong response fares no better.
3 × 10 = 30.
If the work isn’t credible, even an enthusiastic response can’t compensate.

This is why “good enough” on both sides is so expensive.
5 × 5 = 25.
Average execution and average response together produce thin outcomes.
It feels acceptable.
It delivers little.

Value only forms when both sides of the equation are strong.
9 × 9 = 81.
That’s not twice the impact of average performance.
It’s more than three times.
And the difference compounds.

This explains patterns that don’t make sense through an execution lens alone.
Why technically excellent work gets ignored.
Why well-intentioned messages create confusion.
Why strategy fails to mobilise even when it’s sound.
The action was real.
The response wasn’t.
Without both, value leaks away quietly.

The distance between your delivery and their experience is the exact measure of your success – or failure.

Most organisations already know how to strengthen action.
They’ve invested decades building execution capability.
What they haven’t built with the same discipline is the capacity to design for response.
To anticipate how something will be received at the point of delivery.
To notice when response is weak before outcomes disappoint.
To treat misalignment as data, not resistance.

The leaders who outperform don’t execute harder.
They design actions with the response in mind.
They test whether something landed before scaling it.
They adjust when the multiplication breaks.
This isn’t softer leadership.
It’s more precise leadership.

Before launching your next initiative, it’s worth asking:
If value is multiplicative, which side of the equation are we strengthening — and which are we assuming will take care of itself?

That assumption is almost always where value disappears.

Execution creates output.
Response determines whether that output becomes value.
Ignoring either guarantees disappointment.

This article reflects ideas explored more fully in Beyond Execution, where I introduce the Action-Response Principle — the strategic framework for turning effort into impact.