Our Take
The execution gap is real but not new: leaders know what to do, they just won't fund it at scale or commit to it across all functions at once.
Why it matters
HR leaders and operations executives face immediate pressure to prove adaptability works, but KPMG's data shows the bottleneck is organizational commitment, not strategy. The gap between intent and execution is widening as disruption accelerates.
Do this week
CHRO or COO: audit your top 3 transformation initiatives this week to verify whether each one touches every function or remains siloed to a single department, then flag which ones need executive re-commitment to scale.
KPMG finds most organizations stuck in reactive mode
KPMG surveyed 1,120 executives and found a pronounced gap between leadership intent and organizational execution. Companies scored only +12.5 out of a possible +100 on "net proactivity," a measure of whether organizations anticipate disruption or primarily respond after challenges surface (per KPMG's Adaptability Pulse Survey).
The performance difference is stark. Proactive initiatives achieved most or all intended outcomes 92% of the time, compared with 62% for reactive initiatives (per the report). Organizations combining proactive leadership with coordinated execution outperformed peers significantly: 4.4 times higher shareholder returns and 3 times higher revenue growth during periods of disruption.
Enterprise-wide change initiatives were nearly three times more likely to succeed than isolated, department-level adjustments. Despite this, KPMG found that most organizations continue to treat adaptability as a side project rather than a systemic business function.
The execution gap is structural, not strategic
Leaders universally agree adaptability is critical. The problem is not disagreement on direction, it is failure to wire the capability into every function simultaneously. KPMG identified three specific constraints limiting adaptability at scale.
First, change efforts remain too small. Organizations rely on isolated initiatives or department-level adjustments that do not propagate across the enterprise. Second, companies operate in "firefighting mode" rather than building proactive strategies designed to anticipate disruption. Third, 66% of leaders acknowledge that ecosystems and partnerships are top priorities for addressing disruption, yet most organizations lack the decision-making structures to develop high-impact collaborations (per the survey).
For HR teams specifically, this means adaptability cannot be an HR program. It must be wired into finance, operations, product, and sales simultaneously. Half-measures fail predictably.
What leaders should do now
Map your organization's current transformation portfolio. For each major initiative, determine whether it spans one function or all of them. Initiatives that touch only HR, finance, or operations in isolation are reactive by design and will likely miss intended outcomes.
Second, examine your decision-making speed. Proactive strategies require anticipation, which requires faster feedback loops and clearer early-warning signals. If your crisis response is faster than your planning cycle, you are reactive by default.
Third, audit external partnerships. If your major disruption response does not include ecosystem partners (vendors, consultants, industry peers), you are probably underutilizing a critical input to proactive adaptation.