You've seen it. Every leader has. You walk from one part of the organization to another and something shifts. The high-performing unit hums with a quality you can feel but can't describe. The low-performing unit has the same strategy, the same leadership mandate, the same mission statement on the wall — and completely different results.
Ask anyone in the building and they'll confirm it. "Oh yeah, that team is just different." They'll attribute it to the manager. To the culture. To the people.
But it's not about the people. Both units have competent, hard-working staff. The difference is architectural. One unit has built the right organizational capabilities and connected them. The other hasn't. And because nobody has a shared vocabulary for naming what's different, the gap persists — observed by everyone, understood by no one, and addressed by no one.
This is the invisible gap that eats organizational performance. Not a strategy gap. Not a resource gap. A capability gap that nobody can articulate because nobody has the language.
What "Capability" Actually Means
The word "capability" is one of the most misused terms in organizational life. To IT, it means systems. To HR, it means skills. To strategy, it means competitive advantage. Everyone uses the word. Nobody means the same thing.
A capability, precisely defined, is what an organization must be able to do — regardless of how it's organized, what technology it uses, or who currently does the work.
This distinction matters. Processes change. Org charts change. Technology changes constantly. But capabilities are more stable. Your organization needed to design products a decade ago, needs to today, and will need to a decade from now. How you design products will evolve. That you must be able to design products will not.
When you talk about capabilities at this level — what the organization must be able to do, independent of the current way it's organized — you suddenly have a vocabulary that's stable enough to plan around and specific enough to invest in.
And when you organize those capabilities into a structured hierarchy — what creates value at the top, what supports value creation below — you have something even more powerful: a map of the entire organization that every leader can read, debate, and use.
The Map Nobody Has
Most organizations have an org chart. They know who reports to whom. Most have a budget. They know where money goes. Most have a strategic plan. They know what they aspire to do.
Almost none have a capability map. They don't have a structured view of what the organization must be able to do, at what level of maturity, to deliver on its strategy.
This is the missing artifact. Without it:
-
You can't see gaps. You can observe informally that one division is better at something than another. But you can't name the capability, measure the gap, or explain it in terms that survive a leadership conversation.
-
You can't prioritize investment. When everything is vaguely important, nothing gets the investment it needs. A capability map distinguishes what's critical to your strategy from what's merely necessary — and forces honest conversation about where to concentrate resources.
-
You can't trace strategy to execution. Your strategy says "win through customer intimacy." Your capability map would tell you whether the capabilities required for customer intimacy actually exist at the maturity level your strategy demands. Without the map, you're making commitments you can't verify.
-
You can't diagnose failure. When execution fails, the default explanation is "implementation problem" or "change management issue." A capability map might show something more specific: a maturity gap in a critical enabling capability, a resource gap where a needed capability doesn't exist at all, or an integration gap where individual capabilities work fine in isolation but fail to connect.
Three Types of Gap (and Why the Type Matters)
Not all capability gaps are the same. Treating them as interchangeable is one of the most common and most expensive mistakes organizations make.
Maturity gaps: You have the capability, but it's not good enough. The process exists, the people exist, the systems exist — but the quality, consistency, or sophistication falls short of what the strategy requires. One division has deep, embedded partnerships with industry. Another holds an advisory meeting twice a year. Both "have" the capability. The maturity is worlds apart. The fix: improve what exists.
Resource gaps: You don't have the capability at all. The building blocks — people, processes, technology, data — are absent. You can't improve what doesn't exist. The fix: build from scratch. Hire, procure, develop. This is slower and more expensive than closing a maturity gap.
Integration gaps: Individual capabilities exist and perform adequately, but they don't connect. Each function works in its silo. The handoffs between them are where value gets lost. A stakeholder moving through the organization experiences bureaucratic fragmentation — not because anyone is failing, but because the capabilities were never designed to work together. The fix: change how capabilities interact, which typically means redesigning processes, governance, and sometimes organizational structure.
The type of gap determines the response. Throwing training at a resource gap won't help — you can't train what doesn't exist. Restructuring won't close a maturity gap — the problem isn't the org chart, it's the capability's sophistication. And neither training nor restructuring will close an integration gap — the problem is in the connections between capabilities, not in any single one.
The Heat Map That Ends the Argument
Here's where this becomes actionable at leadership level. Take your capability map. For each capability, assess current maturity against what your strategy requires. Colour-code the result: green (meets requirements), amber (close but falling short), red (significantly below requirements).
Now put that heat map in front of your leadership team.
The hallway walk becomes a colour on a map. The informal observation becomes a data point. The argument about whether the gap is real — the argument that has consumed months of political energy in every organization — ends immediately. The map shows the gap. Everyone sees it. Nobody can dismiss it as one person's impression.
But here's the critical nuance: gap size alone doesn't determine priority. A large gap in a capability that doesn't matter to your strategy is less urgent than a small gap in a capability that sits directly in the path of your most important strategic commitment.
Prioritization requires two dimensions: How big is the gap? And how critical is this capability to the strategy? The capabilities that are both large-gap and high-strategic-alignment are your Priority 1. Everything else sequences behind them.
The Two Failure Modes Nobody Talks About
A capability map reveals two failure modes that most organizations never diagnose.
Strategy without capability: A strategic commitment that has no identified capability behind it. The strategy says "we will win through innovation." The capability map shows no innovation management capability, no R&D infrastructure, no process for moving ideas from concept to execution. The strategy is running on hope.
Every strategic choice should be traceable to specific capabilities that must be in place for that choice to succeed. When you can't trace the connection, you've found an unsupported commitment — a promise the organization can't keep.
Capability without strategy: A heavily invested capability that no longer supports any current strategic choice. Resources flow to it because they've always flowed to it. It was critical five years ago. The strategy has moved on. The investment hasn't.
Orphaned capabilities are politically difficult to address because they have constituencies. People built their careers around them. Budgets were negotiated for them. But every dollar invested in a capability that has lost its strategic mandate is a dollar not invested in one that matters.
Both failure modes are invisible without a capability map. And both are everywhere.
From Private Language to Shared Vocabulary
The hallway walk is real. You can see the gap. But when you try to explain it in a meeting, it dissolves into anecdote and impression. "I just feel like that team operates differently." "There's something about how they work with partners." "It's a culture thing."
A capability model turns the impression into architecture. The gap isn't culture. It's a specific, named enabling capability — something like relationship management or market intelligence or service integration — that one part of the organization has built and another hasn't.
When everyone in the room can point to the same capability on the same map, the conversation shifts from anecdote to analysis. From personality to structure. From "I think there's a problem" to "Here's the gap, here's the type, here's the strategic priority, and here's the investment required to close it."
That's the power of having a shared vocabulary for capability. Not a private observation. A common map.
This post is drawn from Building the Common Language, a self-paced course that shows how capability models turn informal observations into structured, actionable gap analysis — and why the gap you can name is the gap you can close.