The Action-Response Principle

The hidden cost of average execution and average response
By Deano Gomes-Luis

“Good enough” sounds reasonable.
It suggests balance.
Pragmatism.
Professional judgement.
In many organisations, it’s treated as a sign of maturity – an acceptance that perfection is unrealistic and progress matters more than polish.
And yet, “good enough” is one of the most reliable ways value disappears in plain sight.

I’ve seen this play out repeatedly in well–run organisations with capable people and sensible leaders. The work is solid. Expectations are realistic. No one is cutting corners.
Nothing is obviously wrong.
But outcomes remain stubbornly underwhelming.

The problem with “good enough” isn’t the standard itself.
It’s what happens when both sides of performance settle at average.
Average execution, combined with average response, doesn’t produce an average outcome.
It produces a weak one.

Most leaders intuitively understand that poor execution creates poor results. What’s less obvious is that moderate execution paired with moderate response often creates almost no value at all.
The work gets done.
The message goes out.
The change is announced.
But behaviour barely shifts.
Engagement is lukewarm.
Momentum never forms.
The organisation moves on, assuming the initiative “basically worked”.
It didn’t.

This is why value leakage is so hard to see.
Dashboards don’t flash red.
Projects close successfully.
Post–implementation reviews sound positive.
Yet the return on effort is thin.
What’s missing isn’t intensity – it’s alignment.

High impact doesn’t come from pushing one side of the system harder.
Strong execution paired with weak response still underperforms.
Strong response without credible execution collapses just as quickly.
Value only forms when both are strong at the same moment.
Anything less feels acceptable – but delivers little.

The leaders who avoid this trap don’t chase excellence everywhere.
They’re selective.
They understand where “good enough” is genuinely sufficient – and where it quietly kills impact.
They design critical actions to land clearly, not just to be delivered competently.
They pay attention to early signals of indifference, confusion, or disengagement.
They intervene before average response becomes institutionalised.
This isn’t about raising standards indiscriminately.
It’s about knowing where average performance is the most expensive choice you can make.

Before accepting “good enough” on your next initiative, it’s worth asking:
Is this an area where average execution and average response are enough – or one where value only exists if both are strong?
That distinction matters more than most organisations realise.

“Good enough” feels safe.
But safety rarely creates value.

This article reflects ideas explored more fully in Beyond Execution, where I introduce the Action–Response Principle – a way of seeing how value is formed at the point of delivery, and why strong execution alone rarely creates the impact leaders expect.