Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worried well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.
An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past.
Executives’ being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear.
Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
C is wrong because "miss or misinterpret signs... when they do appear" does not make sense -- either they miss the signs or they misinterpret them when they do appear. Has to be: "miss signs... or misinterpret them when they do appear." Another problem with C is the ambiguous pronoun reference in: "if it has worked well in the past." "It" is meant to refer to "course of action," but in C could just as easily be felt to refer to "incipient trouble."
D has several problems. "Executives' being heavily committed" is an awkward subject. The pronoun in "makes them likely" is referring to a noun that is in the possessive case. The gerund "misinterpreting" does not parallel the infinitive "to miss."