Why Leaders Build Programs Before Defining Outcomes (And Why It Keeps Failing)

Here is a pattern I see repeatedly in organizations: A leadership team recognizes they have a problem. Employee engagement is declining. Middle managers are struggling. Innovation has stalled. The response is swift and decisive. They build a program.

A leadership development initiative. A new performance management system. An innovation workshop series. A culture committee. The program gets launched with energy and resources. Six months later, it has lost momentum. A year later, people cannot remember why it started. Two years later, it is quietly discontinued, and the original problem remains.

This is not a failure of execution. It is a failure of strategic thinking. And it happens because we have confused activity with clarity.

The Illusion of Decisiveness

Leaders are rewarded for being action-oriented. For making decisions quickly. For driving results. So when faced with an organizational challenge, the instinct is to move fast. Identify the problem. Find a solution. Implement it.

In many contexts, this instinct serves leaders well. But when it comes to organizational and cultural challenges, this same instinct often leads us astray. Because the question is not "what program should we build?" The question is "what are we actually trying to achieve, and why does it matter?"

Most leaders skip that question entirely. They jump straight from problem identification to program design. And in doing so, they build solutions to the wrong problems.

The Difference Between Tactics and Strategy

Consider the difference between these two approaches:

Approach One: Start with the program "We need better leaders. Let us build a leadership development program. What should be in it? Communication skills. Strategic thinking. Change management. Emotional intelligence. Let us find a vendor, design a curriculum, and roll it out."

Approach Two: Start with the outcome "What do we need our leaders to be able to do that they cannot do now? Why does that gap exist? What would change in our organization if we closed that gap? What is the minimum intervention required to create that change? Is a program even the right approach, or is there something structural or cultural we need to address first?"

The first approach feels decisive. The second approach feels slow. But the first approach almost always fails, while the second approach has a chance of creating lasting change.

Why We Default to Programs

There are several reasons leaders default to building programs before defining outcomes:

Programs feel concrete. You can point to a curriculum, a schedule, a budget. You can show the board that you are doing something. Defining outcomes requires sitting with ambiguity and admitting you do not yet know the solution.

Programs feel achievable. You can delegate program design to HR or bring in a consultant. Defining what you actually need requires grappling with strategic questions that cannot be outsourced.

Programs feel safe. If the program fails, you can blame the vendor, the curriculum, or employee engagement. If you are honest about what you need and still cannot achieve it, you have to confront harder truths about your organization.

Programs postpone the real work. As long as you are busy designing and launching programs, you can avoid the difficult conversations about what is actually broken and what you are willing to change to fix it.

The Cost of This Approach

When we build programs before defining outcomes, we create predictable problems:

We solve the wrong problem. A leadership development program cannot fix a broken organizational structure. A culture initiative cannot compensate for a toxic executive team. An innovation workshop cannot overcome a risk-averse approval process. But we keep launching programs that treat symptoms while ignoring root causes.

We exhaust our people. Every new program requires time and energy. When programs are disconnected from clear outcomes, they feel like add-ons rather than essential work. People comply but do not commit.

We waste resources. Programs are expensive. When they fail, we have spent money, time, and credibility on something that did not move the needle. Then we launch the next program, hoping this one will be different.

We create cynicism. When people watch program after program launch and fade, they stop believing that change is possible. They become skilled at appearing engaged while waiting for the initiative to pass.

What Strategic Clarity Actually Looks Like

Here is what changes when you start with outcomes instead of programs:

You get specific about the gap. Instead of "we need better leaders," you identify exactly what leaders need to be able to do. "Our leaders need to be able to make decisions without escalating everything to the executive team." That specificity changes everything.

You investigate why the gap exists. Is it a capability issue? A structural issue? A cultural norm that punishes independent decision-making? Until you understand why the gap exists, you cannot design an intervention that will close it.

You define what success looks like. Not "80% completion of the leadership program" but "leaders are making decisions at their level and escalations to executives have decreased by 50%." Measurable outcomes that matter.

You question whether a program is even the right solution. Maybe what you need is not training but clearer decision rights. Maybe you need to remove approval layers, not add development workshops. Maybe you need to change who you promote, not how you develop them.

You design the minimum viable intervention. Instead of a comprehensive 18-month leadership program, maybe you need a 90-day experiment with a small group of leaders to test whether your hypothesis is correct. Learn, adjust, then scale if it works.

The Harder Path

This approach requires something uncomfortable: acknowledging that you do not yet know the answer. It requires resisting the pressure to show immediate action. It requires admitting that the real work is thinking, not doing.

For leaders who have been rewarded their entire careers for decisiveness and action, this feels counterintuitive. But here is the truth: jumping to programs is not strategic leadership. It is strategic avoidance.

Real strategic thinking means sitting with the question long enough to understand what you are actually solving for. It means having the discipline to define outcomes before designing solutions. It means being willing to discover that the intervention you need is not a program at all.

The Question That Changes Everything

Before you build the next program, ask yourself: What are we actually trying to achieve, and how will we know if we have achieved it?

If you cannot answer that question with specificity, you are not ready to build a program. You are ready to do the strategic thinking that comes before the program.

That thinking is not a delay. It is the work. And it is the only thing that gives your programs a chance of succeeding.