While there are many change models such as ADKAR, Kotter’s model, and McKinsey’s 7-S Framework, it can be easy to get so focused on the model that we overlook the fundamental key to change: people. Even then, we can overlook a fundamental key to helping people change: relationships.

Consider a change you’ve made or been part of. Perhaps it was learning a new piece of software, getting a new boss, or following a new rule. Next, think of the people who either mandated the change or helped you implement or adapt to it. Were they people who you trusted, respected, and made you feel cared for? Or, the opposite? Chances are that the change was easier to embrace if you viewed the people behind the change positively and had good relationships with them.

Good relationships are crucial to making change successful. If we believe someone has our best interest at heart, if they genuinely want to see us succeed, and if they know and treat us as a person instead of an object, we’re much more likely to want to change.

I recently met with a work team located in another country that faced resistance for years in trying to implement new programs. It didn’t matter to the recipients how great their programs were, what data they could provide to demonstrate their effectiveness, or how smart the team was. What made the difference was the team making the effort to build relationships, understand their culture, and demonstrate genuine care. Through their continued efforts to build relationships they developed trust, and this trust led to recipients embracing the team’s ideas, programs, and recommendations. It opened a window that would have otherwise remained closed and resulted in both parties working together on opposite sides of the glass.

On the contrary, I also recently witnessed a professional, multi-million dollar consulting firm try to implement process changes on behalf of senior leadership. Their approach was to make some quick assessments, tell people what they should do differently, and implement a “thou-shalt” approach. This approach was mirrored by senior leadership, who just made a few token appearances during implementation. As you might assume, the recipients felt objectified and resisted the change. All they had to do was nod and wait it out for things to return back to normal.

Building relationships takes time, and there is no shortcut. It also has to be genuine and without agenda. For example, waiting until you need something from someone before getting to know them will likely backfire. Instead, we can start getting to know the people who work with, for, and above us. For senior leaders, this means getting out of the office and visiting employees. For managers, it’s things like building coalitions with other managers. For individual contributors, it’s asking leaders for things like informational interviews.

That said, building relationships doesn’t need to involve hours of bearing one’s soul or being best friends with everyone. Learning and using people’s names, smiling when passing people in the hall, asking people for their ideas and recommendations, or a genuine “how are you doing?” can go a long way. And, things like asking questions and listening are always helpful. Then, when it comes time to change, we’re much more likely to say “yes.”

In exploring ways to build relationships that support change, consider the following questions:

• When you reflect on times when you’ve wanted others to change, how did the quality of your relationship affect the outcome?
• What gets in the way of you building relationships with people at work?
• What kinds of change are you wanting to implement, and how can you leverage your relationships to support that change?
• What are some approaches you can use to increase trust and connection with other people, both professionally and personally?

• Relying on one approach such as training, coaching, meetings, or imposing rules as the go-to answer to just about every problem (regardless of the problem)
• Looking for the latest “new and bright shiny object” or trend to solve problems (flavor-of-the-month)
• Focusing on symptoms instead of root causes

When taking such approaches, organizations get caught up in superficial solutions and a neverending fascination with tools. In other words, they focus on how to go about solving a problem instead of determining exactly what they’re solving for. In order to find sustainable solutions, we need to reverse this approach. We need to determine if, in fact, it’s actually a nail or something else like a screw, thumbtack, piece of tape, or block of wood. To do so, we need to emphasize the “what,” not the “how.”

Hammers vs. Nails

Organizational “nails” often get reduced to generalizations, symptoms, or assumptions. For example, a need for leadership development, issues around diversity, or challenges with turnover or production.

As those issues like those are reduced to nails, the organization whips out its go-to hammer and starts whacking away. The hammer could be implementing training, hiring a consultant, or imposing rules and policies.

The same approach can be used when creating new programs or initiatives. People get excited about using the latest trends such as personality assessments like Meyers-Briggs, processes like Lean Six Sigma, or management approaches like “Who Moved My Cheese?” and try to incorporate these “hammers” into organizational training. The hammer then becomes a toy that doesn’t even need a purpose – it’s just fun to swing around. These hammers aren’t necessarily bad – they just not might be the right tool for the job.

Beginning With the End in Mind

The key to creating change is to identify what the “nail” actually is using approaches like research, analysis, and/or dialogue. This helps uncover what it is that we’re trying to solve for. We need to answer questions like:

• Is there really an issue? And, if so, is the issue actually what we think it is or something else?
• What is behind the issue?
• What are people’s challenges in dealing with the issue, and what do they need to solve it?

Asking these questions helps reveal the true nail. For example, instead of leadership development, the “nail” could be about limited access to career development resources. Issues around diversity might actually be about fear of conflict rather than getting more facts or tools through training. Production problems could be related to outdated technology versus people needing to work harder. Through deeper inquiry, we might realize that the nail is actually a staple, screw, or splinter.

Now that we know the “what,” we can figure out the “how.” Instead of relying on our trusty hammer, we can use the staple remover, screwdriver, or pliers to solve the problem more quickly and effectively. The same principle applies when creating programs, training, or initiatives. By knowing what outcomes we want (based on our “nail”), we can incorporate the right approaches.

Expanding Our Toolbox

Knowing the “what” opens up endless possibilities around the “how.” We can use creative, customized, and tailored approaches instead of off-the-shelf or one-size-fits-all solutions. The more tools we have at our disposal, the more options we have to solve the problem.

Organizational “nails” are rarely as straightforward as a screw or a tack, so they typically require multiple tools. Sometimes those tools are used simultaneously, sometimes in sequence, and sometimes they’re all rolled into one. Sometimes we need to invent new tools. The bottom line, however, is that once we know what we’re solving for, we no longer need to rely on or force the hammer. By expanding our toolbox, we create solutions that produce impactful, dynamic, and sustained results.

When emphasizing the “what,” not the “how, some questions to ask might be:

• What are my go-to tools?
• What tempts or distracts me from getting to the “what” and causes me to get sidetracked by the “how”?
• How can I incorporate more tools into my toolbox (or, even better, collaborate and leverage other people’s tools)?
• What indicators tell me that I’ve discovered the true “what” around a given problem?
• What are some current situations in which I’m too focused on the “how” without being clear on the “what”?

The Secret to Getting Stuff Done

When things do get off track, many leaders will try to keep pushing forward. They’ll crack the whip, offer incentives (or punishments), or take shortcuts. This just creates additional stress, and will usually result in poorer results with lower morale.

Instead, we can pause, reflect, and apply this simple diagnostic approach: balancing Task with Maintenance.

Let’s take a deeper look at how this approach works.

Task vs. Maintenance

Task simply means the actions we take to get stuff done. They could include writing, producing, tallying, designing, reporting, or presenting. In an organization, when tasks don’t get completed, the organization fails.

Maintenance is what supports the tasks being completed efficiently and effectively. It is the glue that holds everything together. Maintenance includes everything from having clear roles and responsibilities, resolving conflict, communicating effectively, collaborating, or making decisions. In an organization, maintenance is what ensures that tasks get completed.

When a task gets interrupted, quality drops, goals don’t get met, or things fall through the cracks, it’s always a sign to shift the focus to Maintenance. When we shift the focus to Maintenance, we can start to “glue” everything back together and return to Task.

Task: Running Through Tar

Let’s look at some examples of how Maintenance underlies Task:

• People aren’t completing their work on time and are focusing on the wrong things in their day-to-day work. Upon reflection, their supervisor realizes that they have never provided clear standards and expectations. In fact, the supervisor never even developed them in the first place.
• Teams in different departments are working on similar projects. They end up competing against each other and doing redundant work. A leader steps in and says they need to find a way to either collaborate, divide up the work, or hand it over to just one of the departments. The departments reluctantly agree but point out how company policies reward teams who produce more.
• Two co-workers can’t stand each other and are constantly bickering and undermining one another. It impacts the team, but no one speaks up or does anything about it except make light jokes. Everyone, including leadership, is afraid to address the conflict for fear of it escalating or someone leaving.
• A worker keeps trying to get their daily work completed but constantly gets interrupted. New priorities constantly arise and they find themselves frequently putting out fires. The person complains about this chaos but feels hopeless and helpless to do anything about it.

In each of the above examples, something interferes with tasks getting completed. Unfortunately, people will typically keep trying to move forward with Task, which is like running through tar. It becomes harder to make progress because the obstacles are still there. Typically, when we only focus on Task, we treat the symptoms instead of addressing the root cause. Eventually, things start to fall apart in ways like turnover, mistakes, medical issues, or failing to get results.

The Shift to Maintenance

In each of the above issues, there is a clear sign pointing to the need for Maintenance. The key is to notice the signs, stop, and take action to handle the issues.

• For the supervisor, this means creating, sharing, and holding people accountable to their standards and expectations.
• For the teams, it means creating some ground rules for how they’ll work together. For the leader, it’s restructuring the organization’s rewards system in a way that supports the kind of behavior they want to see.
• For the co-workers, it’s people refusing to tolerate the behavior and insisting the co-workers resolve their issues. For leadership, it’s making a clear decision to handle the problem and implement a strategy for getting there.
• For the worker, it’s setting boundaries, planning their workload, asking for help, and negotiating with their supervisor to clarify what’s expected of them.

With those obstacles addressed, work can resume full speed ahead. We can return to Task renewed, energized, and focused. Maintenance isn’t a bad thing – it’s a natural part of being human, and an opportunity to tend to both people and structure. When we can accept it as part of the natural cycle and equal to Task, we can learn to appreciate its value and give it its due.

Making Time for Maintenance

Making time for Maintenance is crucial to success. At the same time, maintenance skills are hard to master. Therefore, it’s important to continually work on skills like communication, decision-making, delegating, strategic planning, and organizational development. The more we flex these muscles, the easier it becomes to handle maintenance and return to getting stuff done.

In assessing your ability to address maintenance, reflect on the following questions:

• How is your productivity impacted by not making time for Maintenance?
• What are some things that keep you from making time for Maintenance?
• What systems or plans can you implement to both ensure that you make time for Maintenance?
• What are some signs in your life or organization to pause and shift to Maintenance?
• How can you and others in your organization become more skilled at Maintenance?

Clear roles and responsibilities.

The Significance of Clear Roles and Responsibilities

The lack of clear roles and responsibilities yields many symptoms that are often misdiagnosed. Leaders tend to focus on dealing with these symptoms without realizing how they are part of a bigger problem. In fact, about 80% of organizational dysfunction can be traced to unclear roles and responsibilities. Some examples of roles and responsibilities include:

• Standards and expectations
• Defined job duties
• Decision-making processes
• Protocols, procedures, processes, and policies
• A clear chain of command
• Sponsorship
• Written documentation

When these elements are vague or non-existent, organizations fall apart. Work stalls, confusion ensues, conflict escalates, waste increases, and energy drains.

The Impact of Unclear Roles and Responsibilities

Let’s look at some common misdiagnoses and some go-to strategies that usually don’t resolve the issue:

• Two teams are assigned to work together on a larger project. Team A is responsible for the final product, and Team B is responsible for improving the processes to produce the product. Team A withholds information, avoids Team B, and generally blows them off. The project manager keeps telling them to work it out themselves using mediation, communication, and conflict resolution skills.
• A leader tries to push through a change initiative but continually gets pushback from colleagues who say things like, “You’re not my boss.” Despite senior leadership endorsing the initiative and thinking it’s a great idea, the leader can’t get any traction. They try various change management strategies, but none seem to work.
• Meetings don’t seem to accomplish much. Participants have lots of dialogue and ideas, but afterward, nothing comes from the conversations. On top of that, the meetings are unfocused, go over the time allotted, and include people who don’t even need to be there. People give feedback on how everyone should stick to the agenda and come away with action items, but it just doesn’t seem to happen.
• Two colleagues are developing an idea together. Shawna, an engineer, is feeling drained from trying to give input that doesn’t seem to land. She also doesn’t want to overstep her bounds. Mario, a builder, doesn’t understand why Shawna is even involved given that she isn’t offering much practical guidance and that he is pretty confident in what he’s doing. Balls seem to keep being dropped. Despite trying to take accountability for their respective mistakes and using conflict resolution strategies, time is getting short without much to show for their effort.

These scenarios are like the story of Alexander the Great who, instead of trying to untie the Gordian knot, simply cut through it with a stroke of his sword. Instead of using various skill-based approaches, what’s really needed are clear roles and responsibilities.

The Way Forward: Clear Roles and Responsibilities

As I mentioned in the list above, there are various aspects of roles and responsibilities such as sponsorship, clear job duties, and established decision-making processes. Let’s revisit the above scenarios and see how some simple clarification addresses the core issue.

• Instead of the project manager forcing the teams to work out the issue themselves, they recognize that, as the manager of the project, they are in a sponsorship role. That means that it’s their job to set standards and expectations for project outcomes and define what each team’s role is in relation to the project. They need to make it clear to Team A how they expect them to work with and include Team B. This sets the guidelines and foundation for the teams to work together and establish a clear protocol for the project.
• The leader pushing through the change initiative needs active sponsorship from senior leadership, not just an endorsement. The leader needs to ask them to step in and publicly sanction the initiative and set expectations for engagement. Although this doesn’t (and shouldn’t) be in a Draconian way, some basic explanation for the “why” and encouraging participation lets everyone know that the initiative isn’t going away with some authority behind it.
• The meetings need the role of a clear leader who also assigns roles such as notetakers and timekeepers, creates the agenda, and aligns both the content and stakeholders to the desired outcomes. The team needs to decide on (or at least be aware of) what their decision-making process to move forward with ideas they discuss. They also need someone to capture action items based on those decisions, and someone to follow up with them.
• The two colleagues need to create an agreement for how they’ll work together and who will do what. Given her area of expertise, instead of wondering how to engage with Mario, Shawna can present approaches for how she’ll provide feedback and direction (format, frequency, etc.) to Mario and get his agreement on those approaches (or negotiate). Each can clarify what they need from the other person, and agree on who will do what at each step of the project. They can also decide how they’d like to make decisions for moving forward and stick to the process, as well as who will capture and follow up on actions.

Diagnosing and Discovering Roles and Responsibilities

Again, most dysfunction and difficulty stems back to unclear roles and responsibilities. The trick is figuring out how to clarify them. In times of trouble, below are some questions to help clarify. Most of the time, the answers will lead you to the solution.

• Can each person who is involved describe what their role is to everyone else?
• Can each person who is involved describe what everyone else’s role is?
• What is the process for making decisions?
• What is the process for tracking actions?
• Who is the clear sponsor (the person/people who can impose formal consequences should it come to that)? What level of engagement is needed from them?
• Does everyone know the standards, expectations, processes, or rules that are expected of everyone involved? If they don’t exist, who will create, communicate, and enforce them?

What Is A Root Cause?

The root cause is an underlying issue that can be difficult to detect but tends to cause multiple symptoms. Root causes can be harder to detect because there are seldom simple, linear answers that point to them. Discovering root causes typically requires people taking time to ask questions, research the issue, and take some time to figure out. By contrast, symptoms are simpler, easier to treat, and don’t require much time or effort. Let’s look at some common symptoms and, in my experience, how they are often addressed:

• Tardiness is increasing, so leadership issue more reprimands and punishments
• An employee is labeled as “difficult” because they speak up a lot, so people start to shun that person
• Bullying is on the rise, so management implements a “zero tolerance” policy
• Productivity is declining, so the company requires everyone to put in more hours
• Competition is heating up amongst employees, so the executive team scolds them and reminds them of the organization’s values

Unfortunately, when people treat the symptoms using the behaviors, the problem only gets worse and creates more problems. Therefore, it’s crucial to address and fix the root cause if you want the problem to go away.

How to Analyze Root Causes

What is often perceived as the problem in organizations is often symptomatic of the larger system. Therefore, we have to look at the bigger picture to find answers. Here are three key elements that often prevent organizations from getting to the root cause (and how to address them):

1. Not Taking Time to Find Root Causes. In our preference for quick fixes, most people don’t want to make time to look for answers. As I mentioned, finding root causes can take time and effort. Therefore, you have to be committed to making time to find them.
2. Focusing on Short-Term Gain. As our culture leans more and more towards instant gratification, we tend to focus on the short-term. We look for what is easy, comfortable, and requires the least amount of effort. Unfortunately, short-term gain often leads to long-term pain. The famous Marshmallow Experiment is one example of this. Instead, we need to flip the script and be willing to face short-term pain in favor of long-term gain. This requires us being willing to be uncomfortable, face facts brutally, and sometimes wade through the muck to find the gold.
3. Not Wanting to Change. As we all know, change can be stressful, uncomfortable, and unpredictable. Addressing root causes inevitably means having to change something, usually starting with our own behavior. Conversely, treating symptoms requires someone else to have to change. Notice in the above examples how the change is directed towards someone else, not the organization as a whole. Fixing most root causes requires everyone having to change. This starts with looking at your role in the issue and how you might be contributing.

If you’re willing to address these three elements, you’re already ahead of the pack. If you want to go deeper, check out this article for some practical tips on root cause analysis.

Examples of Fixing Root Causes

Now that we’ve looked at some ways to discover root causes, let’s look at some common real-life underlying causes for our previous examples and how they were fixed:

• Tardiness was the result of management not holding people accountable due to fear of conflict. Employees started to recognize this and took advantage. When management started restating expectations, got more skilled at handling conflict, and enforcing existing policies, the problem turned around.
• The “difficult” employee was the only one willing to say the things that were on people’s minds but that they were afraid to say. They didn’t want to rock the boat and be seen as a target. When they confronted their fear of being visible, stopped to listen to the employee, and joined forces, they were able to convince leadership to look at some serious issues that needed attention.
• The bullying started at the top and was being modeled throughout the organization. Work became a matter of survival of the fittest. Instead of pointing the finger, leadership had to take a long, hard look in the mirror at their own behavior and make some changes. When they publicly took ownership of their behavior and offered support, people felt safe enough to be vulnerable again and started coming together.
• Productivity was declining because of a lack of faith in leadership. Nepotism was increasing, there were some shady behaviors going on behind the scenes, and racial and gender biases were rampant. These behaviors ran counter to the organization’s stated values, and everyone was fed up. Although the pain got to the point where senior management had to face facts, they never fully owned up to them. Things changed a little to the degree that leadership was willing to do so, but there were even deeper root causes that were never fleshed out (such as corruption, denial, and abuse of power, among other things).
• Competition heated up because resources became more limited and people had to fight for them. Teams needed to work together to succeed but instead, the teams who came out ahead were rewarded and those who didn’t were grilled and chewed out. Leadership was unaware of how they were reinforcing the behavior, even as it ran counter to their stated values. When they became congruent and started rewarding collaboration instead of competition, teams started working together and everyone experienced greater success.

Now that you have a sense of how symptoms can point to root causes, take a look at some symptoms in your own organization and see what the root causes might be. Better yet, share some examples from your organization below!

Ironically, as we’ll discuss in this post, many of these solutions tend to focus on superficial, easy fixes. However, as the principle of Occam’s states, the best solutions are usually the simplest. The path to becoming a learning organization doesn’t mean trying out the new, shiny approaches. It means choosing the harder ones that already exist.

The Curve of Growth model is a simple tool we can use to identify some of these harder choices. In this model, there are two paths we can take in any given situation: the path of resistance or the path of growth. Let’s look at each path, and how we can use this awareness to make choices that create a culture of learning.

The Path of Resistance

The path of resistance focuses on short-term gain. Instant gratification, quick fixes, immediate comfort, and the path of least resistance are part of this path. Not coincidentally, this is also the path of addiction. We seek pleasure (or relief) now without thinking of the long-term consequences. In organizations, this can show up as:

• Cutting costs (versus saving money)
• Laying people off
• Avoiding conflict
• Jumping quickly to solutions
• Imposing strict rules and policies

When we choose to take the path of resistance, we sacrifice long-term pain for short-term gain.

The Path of Learning

The path of learning focuses on long-term gain. Seeing the big picture, thinking things through, making informed decisions, delayed gratification, and investing in people are part of this path. This path can be more challenging because it sometimes requires us to be uncomfortable, make hard choices, take things slowly, and sacrifice pleasure (or relief) in the moment. In organizations, this can show up as:

• Analyzing and eliminating financial leaks, including overtime, unnecessary purchasing, shrinkage, high turnover, and re-work
• Leaning into conflict
• Making strategic plans with stakeholder input
• Researching issues thoroughly before making decisions
• Addressing the root cause, not treating symptoms

When we choose to take the path of learning, we sacrifice short-term pain for long-term gain.

The Choice Point

Fortunately, we have a choice of which path to take. The hardest part is making that choice. To choose the path of learning, we need to be clear on our values, have courage, and self-reflect. Of course, if this was easy we’d likely already be doing it. Therefore, we need to develop the muscles to face short-term discomfort. We have to be willing to ride it out or push through until we come out on the other side.

I once worked with a leader who was upset with senior management. Despite her frustration, she was quite successful in her position and liked her job. She was also making a significant impact on her team’s performance, and they appreciated her leadership.

After a series of disappointing interactions, the leader suddenly decided to transfer to a new location. However, it wasn’t until shortly after she made the decision that she realized how much she was letting her team down. She didn’t think about the impact it would have on her team and the success they were experiencing. Unfortunately, senior management had quickly replaced her and it was too late to go back.

When I debriefed with her, she expressed regret at how she handled the situation. She acknowledged her short-term gain of letting her emotions get the best of her and making a rash decision. When we talked about how she would liked to have handled it, she realized that should could have thought through ways to address her frustration. She could have put things in perspective and noticed how her frustrations were small compared to her wins. She could have had some tough conversations early on and been direct with management about what she needed from them.

Taking the Path of Learning

Unfortunately, my client didn’t recognize her choices until it was too late, which is what typically happens when we take the path of resistance. Fortunately, there are always opportunities to make different choices. As you reflect on a current challenge, consider:

• What causes you the most discomfort about your challenge?
• What are some options to handle your discomfort?
• What would the impact of your choices be five years from now? Ten years?
• What would you have to face if you chose the path of learning?
• What support would you need if you chose the path of learning?