The same problems keep coming up, time and again

Some business problems don’t seem to go away.  Temporary fixes can be implemented, but the problems inevitably return. If they are ignored completely, they can sap the effectiveness of a whole organisation.

Commonplace examples of these problems are:

1. Projects delivered late and over budget
2. Individuals who don’t seem to ‘get it’, despite their obvious talents
3. Conflict inside teams and boards that sits under the surface – but severely inhibits collaboration and progress
4. A tendency to get stuck in old ways of doing things, rather than being innovative and creative
5. Business goals that seem to be clear, but behaviours that contradict them
6. Meetings that consistently overrun and don’t achieve much

Why do these problems exist? Usually it’s because the causes can’t be identified using normal problem-solving techniques.  And if you can’t identify the causes, it’s difficult to implement the right solution.

Most problem-solving techniques rely on the source of the problem being logical and rational: like a machine on a production line or a computer programme.  But the really awkward problems arise when the hidden drivers of human behaviour are mixed in too.  These tend to be complex and non-rational, and often beyond the awareness of even the people concerned.  No wonder that a problem that looks simple and straightforward often turns out be persistent and pernicious – even when all the people involved are positively motivated and want to do the right thing.

In our (i.e. the authors) day jobs, we specialise in coping with awkward, obstinate and difficult business problems. These are problems that haven’t been susceptible to normal management action.  They cause stress and pain as the problem continues to fester – and if not resolved, can generate major damage to a firm.

These problems tend to persist because normal management problem-solving assumes that people operate like rational machines – when clearly they don’t.  Attempts to deal with the human side of achieving business results are packaged up completely separately as HR or soft skills.  What is actually needed is a rigorous approach to problem-solving that incorporates both the logical and the human aspects of business success.

People systems

All managers are familiar with the concept of mechanical systems – whether they are systems like a car assembly line, IT, or complex technology.  Much of management problem-solving is based around building and fixing such systems, systems which are essentially linear and obey the laws of logic and physics.

But any team of people, whether a work group, management team, board – or whole firm – also forms an organic system that tends to generate a consistent set of results.  Consciously, most people want to do the right thing, but their actual behaviours are driven by hidden factors – relationships, values, hopes and fears – which are not purely logical (or we would all be healthy, happy and motivated 100% of the time).  Most management problem-solving techniques start by assuming that the system is mechanical and that there is some logical flaw in its make-up: they are not designed to cope with ephemeral concepts like human values and perceptions.

The people system within a firm is reinforced by other relationships, for example:

• the power exerted by a firm’s owners and/or board;
• peer pressure from the industry and/or profession of the people within the firm;
• cultural norms established by historical precedence.

Psychologically, the people within a system resist fundamental change to their behaviours because they are driven to maintain their own sense of identity: i.e. who they are.  As a result, a people system can look like a mechanical system: it tends to act in a way to maintain a consistent and predictable set of results.  But applying mechanical solutions can easily backfire, for example by ascribing blame to one component (i.e. a person) when the real issue is much more complex.

A stable system produces consistent results

The consistent results produced by a stable system are not always good: they can be good but are sometimes bad.  The bad results generated by the system are much more troublesome than routine management problems because, by definition, the system itself will tend to re-generate them time and time again.  Management efforts to deal with such problems are not effective in eliminating them, for the reasons described previously.  Ironically, people within the system often understand the problem very clearly from an intellectual standpoint, but don’t understand why their normal repertoire of management action is not effective in dealing with it.

So the underlying cause of an obstinate and difficult problem is that the people system has created the problem and acts in ways which automatically keep the problem in place, rather than resolving it.  Participants in the system/problem can often see the problem from an intellectual standpoint, but find themselves unable to take the complex actions necessary to change the system that is creating the problem in the first place. This is because they (and, ironically, their management repertoire) are actually part of the bigger system that generated the problem.

This can be summarised in a saying taken from the philosophy of systems thinking:

• Any system or relationship is exquisitely designed to deliver precisely the result that it does.

This potentially provocative statement forces everyone to take ownership of (at least) their part in maintaining an adverse situation.

Resolution

Business discipline and rigour is necessary to resolve these persistent problems – recognising the reality of human strengths and frailties and the importance of relationships in these systems doesn’t mean that we have to go all soft.  If anything, a higher degree of rigour has to be established because the problem-solver starts by being inside the problem, rather than looking at it objectively from the outside.

These systemic problems can be resolved in four major ways:

1.Replacing. Changing the identity of the people within the system so that the balance of how the system operates is changed.  The classic option here is to hire a new chief executive, because the behaviours of the CEO are, in theory, more powerful than the other members of the system.  This can be very effective, but it can also be a lottery (look at the turnover rate of CEOs in some firms).  A strong existing system can overcome the most powerful new CEO, and it’s very difficult to predict how a new system will change on the appointment of a new person: it is quite possible to create worse problems than those that existed already.

2. Side-stepping. A classic major consulting intervention, in effect, by-passes the current system (and people) completely in order to deal with the problem.  This can be highly effective in dealing with some emergency problems, but it is always expensive (because you are hiring a whole alternative system) and always temporary.  The client’s existing system and that of the consultant are two disconnected islands: as soon as the consultant disappears its impact on the existing system evaporates.  Outsourcing and business disposal are two other side-stepping techniques, both of which carry their won significant overheads.

3. Repairing. Introduce a change agent.  A change agent is also an external consultant – but one whose role is to work within, and enhance, the existing system rather than by-pass it.  An effective change agent needs to understand the nature of the systemic change required, be sufficiently experienced to carry it out, and have sufficient initial power from the board and/or CEO to take the required actions.  They need to have a thick skin to cope with the resistance that the system will inevitably generate, and be prepared to walk away if the sponsors – who will also see some side effects – decide to revert to old habits.  A change agent is inherently more cost-effective than a classic consultant because they are able to leverage existing resources.  They also have longer-lasting impact, because changes implemented by the client system are more likely to be reinforced and maintained.

4. Integrating. A powerful member of the existing team (for example, the CEO) recognises that the problem is a systemic one, and takes steps to change the system at a systemic level – rather than by just changing specific behaviours or fixing localised problems.  This requires a level of personal insight and systemic awareness that is rare in most CEOs, who are usually in their role because they have achieved considerable success within systems similar to the current one.  CEOs are powerful, but they don’t have the authority to carry out brain surgery on their employees!  The most powerful way they can change the bigger system is by changing one of the major components within it – themselves – and allowing this personal change to resonate through the system.  This can be done, but it is a huge ‘ask’ and will certainly require the coaching and guidance of an experienced external mentor to see it through.

Options 3. Repairing and 4. Integrating are by far and away the most reliable and efficient ways to eliminate obstinate and painful problems.  These approaches work best in combination because the benefits of both approaches naturally tend to feed off and reinforce one another.  A strong relationship with a board or CEO provides the authority to implement the required changes, and these changes in turn provide reinforcement for the delicate personal behaviour adjustments that need to be made at the top to maximise and solidify the system changes.  By gaining leverage at the ‘system’ level, we can follow through on the delivery of major business benefits far more efficiently than using other means.

Example solutions

In the introduction to this chapter, we listed 6 commonplace examples of persistent problems:

 Meetings that consistently overrun and don’t seem to achieve much

1. Individuals who just don’t seem to ‘get it’, despite their obvious talents
2. Projects delivered late and over budget
3. A tendency to get stuck in old ways of doing things, rather than being innovative and creative
4. Conflict inside teams and boards that sits under the surface – but severely inhibits collaboration and progress
5. Business goals that seem to be clear, but behaviours that contradict them

 Here is an overview of how these problems might be approached using the approach outlined in this chapter:

 1.       Meetings that consistently overrun and don’t seem to achieve much

Rather than launching into meetings with a simple agenda (or no agenda at all), move to a meta level and consider the purpose of having meetings at all.  For each type of meeting, establish its specific purpose and ensure that its process, including the people invited, are keyed to the purpose.  If appropriate, engage a facilitator (either internal or external) whose job is to keep the meeting to its purpose.  A fuller description is contained in the chapter Meeting, bloody meetings.

 2.       Individuals who don’t seem to ‘get it’, despite their obvious talents

Coaching and mentoring around individual goals and values and how these fit with corporate goals and values.

 3.       Projects delivered late and over budget

Recognising that project management is a skill in its own right, encompassing people issues as well as planning. Additional areas to address may include communications, conflicting priorities, managing expectations, and celebrating success.

 4.       A tendency to get stuck in old ways of doing things, rather than being innovative and creative

People have been reinforced in the past for certain behaviours, so will tend to stick with them.  The system tends to maintain them through rewards and punishments.

 5.       Conflict inside teams and boards that sits under the surface – but severely inhibits collaboration and progress

It may not always be possible to resolve these kinds of tensions at the time that they surface. In the longer term, however, they must be addressed because the energy taken in managing their consequences is ultimately a waste of time and effort. This is usually best achieved with the use of an expert mediator or facilitator who can bring the parties together outside of the board room.

 In the short term some progress can be made by switching to a focus on goals, because these are at a deeper logical level (and therefore more important) – and build commitment to them before coming back to consider the immediate issue.

 6.       Business goals that seem to be clear, but behaviours inside the business that contradict them

Do people really understand the business vision and goals?  The evidence suggests a lack of engagement. How does the business vision relate to them – do they care?  Why should they care? The meta-message will be more powerful than the apparent content of a message: contradictory behaviours by senior managers will always trump anything that is written on a wall.