From no performance comparison
to shared metrics
No structure for
performance comparison
Execution is judged through anecdote and intuition. Success criteria vary by team, blocking alignment. Leadership lacks a unified lens to assess effectiveness.
Teams operate in silos
without shared metrics
Execution is judged through isolated data and gut feel. Success definitions clash, blocking alignment and scale. Leadership flies blind without a comparison model.
Teams align on shared
performance metrics
Execution is evaluated through consistent, cross-functional criteria. Success becomes measurable, comparable, and scalable. Leadership gains a unified lens on effectiveness.
From strategy–execution disconnect
to aligned priorities
Execution misaligns
with strategic priorities
Teams pursue goals disconnected from GTM intent. Tactical choices ignore cross-functional consequences. Strategy is not enforced or reflected in execution.
Strategy disconnects from
day-to-day execution
Teams pursue goals that ignore GTM priorities. Tactical choices happen in isolation from cross-functional impact. Execution drifts while strategy remains theoretical.
Strategy stays
connected to execution
Teams operate with visibility into GTM priorities. Tactical choices reinforce strategic goals across functions. Execution reflects leadership intent in real time.
From hidden risks
to scaled wins
Strengths & risks
remain invisible
High-performing behaviors are never identified or scaled. Operational gaps stay hidden until failure occurs. Teams lack a system to surface what matters.
Strengths are missed,
risks stay buried
High-performing behaviors go unrecognized and unreplicated. Operational gaps remain hidden until they trigger failure. Teams lose the chance to reinforce or course-correct.
Strengths are scaled
& risks contained
High-performing behaviors are identified and replicated. Operational gaps are surfaced before failure occurs. Execution improves through targeted reinforcement and correction.
From cross‑function misalignment
to proactive resolution
Misalignment festers
across GTM functions
Marketing, Sales, Success, and RevOps follow conflicting workflows. Coordination issues are addressed only after damage. No mechanism exists to detect or resolve divergence.
Misalignment spreads
with no resolution path
Functions operate with conflicting logic and workflows. Coordination issues are addressed reactively, if at all. Execution breaks down while no one owns the fix.
Misalignment is resolved
before it spreads
Functions operate with shared logic and workflows. Coordination issues are flagged and addressed proactively. Execution becomes collaborative and friction-free.
From fragmented data
to unified metrics
Performance data is
fragmented & unusable
Metrics live in disconnected systems with no standardization. Teams can’t benchmark or spot execution gaps. Leadership operates without a clean view of GTM health.
Data fragmentation blocks
performance visibility
Metrics live in disconnected systems with no standard view. Teams can’t benchmark or identify outliers. Leadership wastes time stitching together partial truths.
Performance data becomes
unified & actionable
Metrics are captured in a structured, comparable format. Teams benchmark progress and identify outliers with clarity. Leadership makes decisions from complete, consistent data.
From lost feedback loops
to continuous improvement
Feedback loops are
ad hoc & unreliable
Insights vanish into Slack threads or meeting notes. Patterns go undetected and never inform execution. Field input is lost before it drives change.
Feedback loops vanish
before driving change
Insights are shared informally and never captured systematically. Patterns go undetected and learnings stay unused. Execution continues without field-informed correction.
Feedback loops drive
continuous improvement
Insights are captured systematically and applied across teams. Patterns inform execution and shape future strategy. Learning becomes embedded in the operating rhythm.
From biased decisions
to full‑context choices
Decisions rely on partial,
biased data
Leadership acts on team-specific narratives without full context. Risks and opportunities are misjudged in isolation. Strategy drifts from operational reality.
Decisions reflect bias,
not operational truth
Leadership acts on incomplete, team-specific narratives. Risks and opportunities are misjudged without full context. Strategy loses credibility and precision.
Decisions reflect
full GTM context
Leadership acts on structured input from every function. Risks and opportunities are evaluated with precision. Strategy evolves in sync with execution realities.
From recurring failures
to eliminated breakdowns
Execution failures repeat
without resolution
Problems resurface quarter after quarter without correction. Teams lack a system to track and eliminate breakdowns. Operational drag compounds with no containment.
Execution failures repeat
without containment
Problems resurface quarter after quarter without resolution. No system exists to track or eliminate recurring issues. Operational drag compounds while fixes stay superficial.
Execution failures are
tracked and eliminated
Recurring issues are documented and resolved with structure. Teams operate with a mechanism for continuous correction. Operational drag decreases quarter over quarter.
From undefined GTM
to unified standard
No shared GTM
evaluation framework
Each function defines success using its own logic. Comparison becomes subjective and non-scalable. Teams operate without a common diagnostic model.
GTM health lacks
a shared definition
Each function defines success in isolation. Metrics clash, narratives compete, and alignment breaks. Execution fragments without a common standard.
GTM health is
defined & shared
Success is measured through consistent, scalable criteria. Metrics align, narratives converge, and comparison becomes objective. Execution accelerates under a unified standard.
From symptom‑level fixes
to root‑cause solutions
Improvement efforts lack
root cause clarity
Initiatives launch without diagnosing systemic breakdowns. Resources chase symptoms instead of structural fixes. Execution changes without solving the real problem.
Improvement efforts
miss the real problem
Initiatives launch without clarity on root causes. Resources fix what’s visible instead of what’s systemic. Execution shifts—but nothing actually improves.
Improvement efforts solve
root causes directly
Teams operate with clarity on what’s broken and why. Resources target systemic issues, not surface-level symptoms. Execution improves through focused, strategic change.