There is a
herd mentality prevailing in many top corporate leaders that their prime focus
is to drive business dynamism for the respective organisation they steer, and
nothing else is more important than this objective. In this respect, they
direct clarion calls for garnering full resources to propel initiatives
targeting at business growth. That perception appears realistic and practical, except
one thought-provoking question: Should they not pay equal attention to tackling
issues that possibly stumble the pace of growth?
Some leaders
think it is quite simple to solve problems – just recognising the issues that
can be seen and heard at work, followed by applying assumed corrective actions
quickly. But is the approach so simplistic? Well, I think not. Why? Because
what they normally perceive are superficial ones, i.e. those noticeable at the
open surface, and not the underlying core causes contributing to the issues
seen and heard.
Any
corporation yearning for assertive revamp or transformation needs to fully
recognise the ominous hidden impediments, which if not eradicated, will thwart
salient improvements. Like it or not, without eradicating the core causes,
efforts to drive intended revamp and transformation will be negated.
Take the
analogy of an apple tree once adorned with juicy fruits but now withering away.
Let us say hypothetically the farmer decides to treat by pruning the branches,
also applying pollination booster spray and laying fertiliser on the
surrounding soil surface. Would such measures based on what could be perceived
and seen outwardly really help? Probably it is not the outward tree problem but
pertaining to decaying roots beneath which could not be seen. If the roots are
being attacked by termites, surely efforts to treat the tree above the ground
would be hapless.
The farmer
should instead unearth the surrounding soil to diligently check the condition
of the roots. If termites have infested the roots, he should tackle the termite
issue, like applying the right pesticide and the right fertiliser directly to
the root buttress. That would be correctly tackling the core issue with the
right solutions.
Getting to
the core of a superficial problem necessitates meticulous attention. Literally
speaking, the process entails drilling deep through numerous layers to reach
the underlying core. Not as simplistic as acting on what could be seen or
heard.
The above
analogy represents the right approach to tackle a single core issue. The single
apple tree could relate to an individual subordinate in a team. A corporate
leader should learn to understand every direct downline subordinate well to
identify the respective core weaknesses marring respective personal
(individual) performance. This is the Micro
Prong aspect.
A corporate
leader invariably also encounters general issues posing major faults negatively
impacting his entire team, hence the necessity to zero in to the bottom of the
real macro causes. This is the Macro Prong
aspect.
I wish to
recommend my approach called THE IN-DEPTH DIAGNOSTIC INQUIRY for probing into
core causes that conjure superficial problems.
Now, let us
examine two simulated case studies – one micro and one macro - reflecting probable scenarios of the real
corporate world.
Case Study
1 (Micro)
A sales director
finds one of his recently recruited sales member slow in sales scores despite
having undergone full sales technical training. Tracking records indicate the
young man is not conducting enough business calls. Should the leader take the
perceived problem at its face value? Should the leader immediately recommend
intensive business call methods re-training for the sales member? Or should the
leader probe for the underlying reason why the subordinate is not making
sufficient calls?
The in-depth
diagnostic inquiry, with the cooperation of the subordinate, may be like the
following process.
SUPERFICIAL ISSUE: NOT ENOUGH BUSINESS CALLS. INQUIRER: SALES DIRECTOR. RESPONDENT: SALES MEMBER
SUPERFICIAL ISSUE: NOT ENOUGH BUSINESS CALLS. INQUIRER: SALES DIRECTOR. RESPONDENT: SALES MEMBER
SUCCESSIVE STEPS
|
INQUIRE/PROBE ON
|
IF RESPONSE IS….
|
1
|
Why not enough business calls?
|
Lack of prospects. Can’t find enough
prospects.
|
2
|
Why lack of prospects?
|
Not many natural contacts/markets.
|
3
|
Tried referred leads/cold calls?
|
Yes.
|
4
|
How many leads/cold calls so far?
|
Less than 10.
|
5
|
Why so few only?
|
Not successful, so ceased trying.
|
6
|
Why ceased trying?
|
Not working for me.
|
7
|
Any underlying reason?
|
Tedious. Prospects not receptive.
|
8
|
Felt comfortable in making calls?
|
Not really.
|
9
|
Reason?
|
Feel I am not cut for the job.
|
10
|
You have call reluctance?
|
Yes.
|
11
|
Why?
|
It is like pestering and imposing.
|
Conclusion:
Core reason for not making enough business calls is the agent’s negative
concept of the career. He is neither
proud nor committed to his selling role – that is why he has refrained from
further prospecting and making business calls to people outside his natural
contacts.
Had the
leader tried to tackle the superficial issue by recommending the subordinate to
undergo intensive technical re-training in prospecting and cold calls, that
would be like wrongly treating the individual apple tree without checking the
condition of the roots. That would be futile. Rightly so, reinforcing the right
concepts of the career into the agent might work……if this still does not help,
then no point to retain the individual; the plausible action is to advise him
to look for other careers.
Case
Study 2 (Macro)
After the
merger of two prominent corporations in the financial services industry, the
revamped institution decides to quickly implement a new IT service support
system to consolidate data from both sides so that all backroom personnel could
rely on one (common) platform for service operations. Alas, few years down the
road from the commencement date for system migration, incessant complaints from
customers and sales agents on service discrepancies continue to bug the
management. There seems to be no end to new discrepancies discovered
continually despite restitution “patching” work done each time a complaint has
cropped up.
The
management’s off-the-cuff generalised conclusion sans (without) further probe: Discrepancies
due to human errors in the system migration process – a quick superficial perception.
However, this does not answer how and why the human errors occurred. An
in-depth probe, led by an outside consultant adept in such inquiry and with
sound related experience in the same industry, may unravel the core causes (not
just one) of the discrepancies, like as below:
SUPERFICIAL
ISSUE: DISCREPANCIES DUE TO HUMAN ERRORS IN THE MIGRATION PROCESS
INQUIRER:
APPOINTED CONSULTANT. RESPONDENT: KEY REP. OF SYSTEM VENDOR.
SUCCESSIVE STEPS
|
INQUIRE/PROBE ON
|
IF RESPONSE IS………
|
1
|
What type of discrepancies resulted by
human errors?
|
System migration data mismatch.
|
2
|
The cause of the data mismatch?
|
Oversight because of rush to meet the short
timeline for the migration. User requirements were not comprehensive. Data
mapping was not done correctly. No one was appointed to look at the end to
end process.
|
3
|
What transpired at the beginning?
|
First formed a task force.
|
4
|
Who were the members?
|
System vendor representatives,
including myself, and technical staff of the merged institution, including
the IT head.
|
5
|
List the command hierarchy in
descending order……
|
1) IT head as project leader. 2) 10 technical support staff. 3) Myself and my two
subordinates.
|
6
|
Who gave the cues what to do? What
role do you and your two subordinates play?
|
Cues came from IT head and the
technical staff. My side was to facilitate the migration based on their cues
and user requirements given to us.
|
7
|
Was the IT head an incumbent executive?
What about his technical staff?
|
Except for two existing technical staff,
the rest came aboard after the merger (new).
|
8
|
Why this composition?
|
Since adoption of a new system was
involved, the management felt they needed a project team who were not too entrenched
in the old systems and processes.
|
9
|
What was the management’s main
emphasis regarding the system migration?
|
To quickly formulate the parameters
for the adopted system in line with the short timeline.
|
10
|
Any thorough analysis done on the data
and structure of the old systems?
|
Only a very quick browse through. The management
opined it would be quite irrelevant and time consuming to delve into the old
systems.
|
11
|
Looks like the system logic design and
phases for migration of data from the old to new system were mainly executed
by newcomers?
|
Yes.
|
12
|
What about the role of the two incumbent
technical staff?
|
They were assigned to conduct user
acceptance tests (UAT) only.
|
13
|
Why weren’t discrepancies spotted
during the UAT phase?
|
Due to the short time-frame allowed, only
a few samples were used for UAT, hence not sufficient for thorough testing.
Moreover, the in-force products issued by both companies before the merger
were not totally alike.
|
14
|
Means there may be more discrepancies
yet undetected but could be issues of future complaints?
|
Yes, likely.
|
15
|
What would be the effective solution?
|
Re-study and review the user
requirements/logic for the migration.
|
16
|
What would that entail?
|
Properly analyse data contents and
structure of the old systems. Then redesign the user requirements/logic for
the new system.
|
17
|
Would additional costs be incurred on
top of what was already spent so far?
|
Yes. The services of my side as the
vendor for the new system would be re-engaged for major changes.
|
18
|
This is the right solution if the
management wants an effective remedy?
|
Yes.
|
Evidently, the
in-depth diagnostic inquiry revealed three main factors had contributed to the
anomalies. (1) The short time-frame allowed for completion of the system
migration. The project itself was a rush job. The few samples picked for user testing
were not encompassing enough to fully cover the multifarious data contents. (2)
No proper due diligence to analyse the structure and contents of the old
systems. (3) The task force was not well-versed with the different service
parameters of the two previous corporations. The unlearned bitter experience
which set in should render a lesson learnt when the institution considers
future IT projects.
For a macro exercise,
an experienced empowered impartial moderator should come in. In the above
example, an outsourced experienced consultant is appointed the protagonist
because no internal officer with such astuteness is at hand. Obviously, a macro
exercise is more complex than a micro one, as reflected by the longer inquiry
steps in case study 2.
The right
remedy for reforming data consistency and service stability needs the
management’s committed resolve to support the recommendation. The top
management needs to decide on costs versus revamp results………or aptly put, either
foot the extra costs to effectively stamp out data discrepancies once and for
all, or face up the possibility of erupted wrath expressed by customers and
sales agents. The current approach of executing sporadic “patching” work whenever
new complaints on discrepancies crop up now and then will never be the
wholesome solution.
Obviously, a
new task force comprising personnel familiar with the intricacies of the old
systems and data contents should be formed to work with the vendor. This calls
for an efficacious documented proposition by the consultant – written, visual
and verbal – to secure the top management’s buy-in.
Summary:
Inquisitive
proactivity and determination by all relevant segments in a corporation
represent the bastion for successfully ironing out core issues which hinder
vibrant progress. First, relevant leaders must be seriously keen to investigate
the real inherent issues causing perceived problems. Second, relevant personnel
must render whole-hearted cooperation to be involved in a drill-down diagnostic
exercise. Third, only experienced personnel familiar with the specific
situation should be engaged. Fourth, the top management of the corporation
concerned must support recommendations constituting the right remedial
measures. Such an endeavour requires committed synergy from all relevant internal
parties.
Quotes:
· * “When
you start with a careful effort to define the problem, you almost always
discover that the problem isn’t what it seemed to be at first or what other
people told you it was.”
· * “Problems
get misdiagnosed in business for the simple reason that people notice symptoms
of the underlying problem and leap to a diagnosis based on initial symptoms. As
in medical illnesses, business symptoms may have many root causes, and it takes
a careful analysis to figure out what’s really going on.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment