TACKLING CORE ISSUES SUCCESSFULLY

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 

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.”

(Quotes by Alexander Hiam – author of “Business Innovation For Dummies”)