An organization can repeatedly address visible problems without changing the conditions that produce them. 

Organizations often respond to recurring problems using actions that have become predictable; hiring people, introducing technology, reorganizing teams, or changing processes. Sometimes things improve, sometimes not. All too often the decisions on what the problem is and how to solve it are a race to the next problem and lack the understanding to prevent it from happening again.  

Reducing recurring problems is important so organizations can focus on providing customer value; team members feel their efforts are meaningful and so small issues today do not turn into major long-term problems. 

Learning for the Long Term 

A helpful language for separating symptoms from the real problems is the single loop and double loop learning proposed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schon (1). Single-loop learning is the process organizations execute to correct matters in order to achieve a stated goal or objective. Management receives complaints about slow IT support, so they institute tighter SLAs or hire more staff under the same model; this is a single loop. Double loop learning examines and seeks to make corrections for the long term, often requiring changes to policies or objectives.  

Continuing with our slow IT problem, applying the double-loop learning discipline management re-evaluates the support structure and why so much support is required, including the underlying processes involved to see if the existing service model remains appropriate. Double-loop learning is not just investigating the root cause; it involves questioning the assumptions or governing variables that shape organizational responses. A double-loop inquiry may produce a change that takes considerable time to implement, where single-loops are generally quick and immediate.  

Both single-loop (short term) and double-loop (long term) corrections are required in effective organizations. The message is that while short-term quick fixes may be necessary, recurring problems signal to leadership there is more needed than fixing a symptom; they need to identify the double-loop learning that will fix the real problem and stop it from recurring.  

Common Recurring Problems 

Problems can happen throughout the organization, but there are a few common categories where the pattern can be observed: hiring, technology procurement, and process changes.  

Hiring 

Hiring people benefits from art and science; art in the need to connect as humans and interpret feelings, science in that there are competencies and sometimes formal requirements (i.e. licensing) that must be met. All too often hiring is left as a gut check; leaders with full calendars conduct brief interviews asking generic questions, and the highest paid person starts the review by suggesting who they think is best.  

Common recurring problems in hiring are disruptions to culture, misaligned teams, and high turnover. A global firm went through 5 people for the same senior HR position over 3 years. The same job description, the same team, the same accountability, the same pitch, and the same people involved in hiring. In the end, the role was never set up for success as the organization simply did not have the structure to make the role have any teeth, so even if they found a great person, they would end up leaving as what was on paper and said did not reflect the actual workings of the organization.  

Technology 

Some technology can give organizations a competitive advantage, but only if the underlying operation can embrace it and change. Digital transformations have become common with organizations fearing what they may miss, while others chose to stay out of new technology as the old ways work just fine. 

How a decision is made on technology can help leaders see what may be happening behind the scenes. Major software changes that affect most of the organization need extreme care ahead of the decision, and no software no matter how intuitive will provide value if the organization cannot integrate it effectively. Software changes at a team or individual level may be justified, or they may be a reaction to a symptom.  

Process Change 

I once worked with a grocery store chain leader who, on a boardroom conference call where the CEO was soliciting views for the coming years’ priorities stated, “Can we just get rid of all the stupid work our teams have to do?” His note was that store teams were asked to do so many things, and a lot of them seemed to simply be out of habit because if they didn't, someone from head office would ask them why (because that was what they did on repeat). An initiative was started and within a few weeks, dozens of tasks and processes were being reviewed, and many ended up being eliminated as they were status quo versus providing value. A process should be used when it provides value, and if a process no longer provides value, team members need to have space to show and tell this to leadership. To determine a process is no longer providing value, the organization needs to have leaders who are checking and team members who can and will speak up.  

A key issue with process change relates directly to technology. Any new technology will require changes to existing processes. While the technology procurement path can be fun with presentations, demos and dinners, the less attractive but critical step of understanding what must change with the technology is often incomplete, resulting in recurring implementation challenges.  

The Management System: Underlying Conditions 

Every organization has a management system; some are delivery built and maintained, some emerge over history. When we talk about double-loop learning, we are talking about making changes to the management system. The system is a set of areas which I call domains; each act on their own and has multiple interactions with each other. Moving from an abstract strategy to priorities people can act on is one domain called strategy translation. Decision rights and governance work together to make sure authority is designed and visible. Information flow ensures trusted information is available to those who need it when they need it. Performance management determines what success looks like and what will be measured. These and other domains combine to create relationships that help ensure an efficient decision cycle, reduce cross-team conflicts, and ensure problems solved are viewed not just for the symptom, but for what may be causing it.  

An emergent system is the result of leadership choosing not to specifically design how the various domains function within the organization. A strategy is formed in the boardroom or offsite; the language and context is at the executive level. In an intentionally designed system, that strategy would be translated into meaningful terms and actions to the various teams who need to execute. In an emergent system, the same or similar wording, often filled with jargon, is sent up and down the organization with the expectation that everyone ‘gets it.’  “Our strategy is to leverage cross-functional synergies and operationalize a holistic paradigm shift, moving the needle on our core competencies through a synchronized, matrixed approach to value creation”.  

A recurring problem in this space is that managers cannot explain the strategy or how their teams work relates to it, and the organization executes only a fraction of what the initial strategy had intended.  

Understanding, then Action 

The bias for action compels us all to do something, anything as action brings a feeling of relief to anxiety. Organizations need to have fast, effective decision-making cycles to stay competitive, but this does not relieve the burden of ensuring the bias for action is strategically focused.  

A helpful lens for identifying if the action is going to be worthwhile is to ask qualifying questions, for example: 

1. Is the problem worth solving and if so, what is the payoff? There needs to be a clear positive ROI resulting from fixing the problem. In the context I am using, ROI may or may not have financial measures; the point is that the value anticipated for the effort can be clearly stated and aligned upon. 
2. What will we measure? Identify the specific measure that needs to be improved to address the payoff need. Sales increase, expense reduction, customer feedback, and support ticket reduction are examples of measures that could be used. 
3. What do individuals need to do and how will we measure? Identify the performance measures for individuals and what they must do to solve the problem. This may include changing incentives or responsibilities.  
4. What do individuals need to be successful? Address the learning and resources needed to help individuals drive the desired performance. How do people get the knowledge, skills, or information they require?  

Going through this or a similar exercise forces a pause to action to make sure we address the real problem(s). This process does not have to be time consuming, and if individuals or teams struggle to answer these types of questions, delaying action is worth considering.  

Rewards and Reinforcement 

What gets rewarded and reinforced in organizations strongly influences culture. Be very careful about what and who you reward and why, as too much focus on short term, shallow ‘wins’ creates a culture that is short term focused.  

Praise and reward are the unspoken signals which tell your organization what is valued. Highlight leaders who delay a quick short-term win for a true win in the long term. Reward team members who speak up when things don't make sense or when leaders may be missing perspectives. If the culture punishes those who surface genuine concern and questions, you will create an organizational of silent compliance versus functional teams driving towards a common mission.   

Recurring issues that persist are a sign that leadership needs to get the organization thinking and acting differently. Address the visible problems as needed, but do not assume what is visible is a complete perspective. Investigate what conditions may have produced the problem, use the needs level or other frameworks to question assumptions and make rewards and reinforcement of long-term problem solving visible. 

When in Doubt, Start with the System 

Where should someone start if they are facing a recurring problem with no clear root cause? The answer is to conduct analysis, and I suggest the management system is the best place to start. Understand what is running your organization other than people and technology. While only one potential solution, analyzing the organization through the management system lens should provide leaders with enough perspective to ask the right questions and get to the true root cause, stopping recurring problems rather than just their symptoms.  

Reference 

1. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley