The Problem with looking for Solutions too early
The most common leadership mistake isn't poor execution. It's solving the wrong problem, extremely efficiently.
It usually goes like this. A problem surfaces: decisions are slow, a transformation has stalled, an AI investment isn't delivering value, or the same complaint keeps reaching the executive team.
Someone proposes a solution. It gets funded and staffed. A programme starts.
Months later, someone asks whether the original diagnosis was right because some of the original issues are appearing again. By then, the money has been spent, the organisation is tired, and the problem has often returned even if in a slightly different form.
This isn't a failure of intelligence or effort. Most leadership teams are capable, well informed and under real pressure to act. The failure is one of sequence. The fix is chosen before the problem is understood.
Most organisations do not suffer from a shortage of solutions. They struggle to determine which problem actually needs solving.
Why it keeps happening
Three forces are usually at work, and they reinforce each other.
Action Is visible, diagnosis Isn't. A launched programme demonstrates progress. A restructuring shows momentum. A new initiative sends a signal that leadership is responding. Diagnosis doesn't create the same visibility.
Taking time to understand what is really happening can look like delay, even when it is the fastest route to a better outcome. As a result, organisations often feel pressure to act before they understand.
Symptoms are easy to see. Causes aren't.
The problem a leadership team describes is usually where the issue appears, not where it originates. Slow decisions often look like a leadership problem. In reality, the cause may be uncertainty about decision rights. Nobody is sure who can decide, so every decision gets pushed upwards.
A leadership programme won't fix that. It may even make things worse by encouraging greater initiative in a system that still prevents people from acting.
Symptoms are visible. Causes require investigation.
Solutions are sold. Problems aren't.
Almost every external provider arrives with an answer. A restructure. A culture programme. A technology platform. A leadership framework.
Any of these could be the right response. But every provider has a reason to interpret your problem through the lens of what they sell. When diagnosis and solution come from the same place, the solution usually wins. Put these three forces together and a familiar pattern emerges: plenty of initiatives, little traction, no sustainable effect, a growing sense that the organisation is working harder without getting further. Organisations become busy addressing symptoms while the underlying problem quietly becomes harder to solve.
What it really costs
The obvious cost is the money spent on the wrong fix. It is rarely the largest cost. The larger costs are usually less visible.
Senior attention is directed towards the wrong issue for months. People become sceptical of future change because previous efforts failed to deliver lasting results. Confidence deteriorates. Energy is wasted. And the underlying problem remains untouched. Meanwhile, the organisation continues to pay the price.
Leaders rarely underinvest in change. More often, they invest in the wrong change. The most expensive programme is the one aimed at the wrong problem.
A better sequence
The alternative is not slower. It is simply a different order. Find out what is true. Then decide what to do. In practice, that means asking three questions before anything is funded.
1. What are we no longer seeing? Is there a gap between what we believe is happening and what the evidence shows?
2. Where is it costing us, and why? Where exactly is value being lost? What is causing the loss?
3. Will this problem return? Is this an isolated issue? Or is it evidence that the organisation struggles to detect and correct problems like it?
Sometimes these questions confirm the original instinct. You proceed with greater confidence. Sometimes they point to a smaller, cheaper intervention. Sometimes they point somewhere else entirely. Occasionally they reveal that the work already under way is the right work and should be left alone.
All four outcomes are valuable. The only genuinely expensive outcome is committing resources before establishing what is true. Organisations rarely suffer from a shortage of solutions. They more often struggle to determine which problem actually needs solving.
Five questions to ask before you fund the next fix
Whether you are a CEO approving a programme, a Chair reviewing one, or an investor assessing a value creation plan, these questions are worth asking out loud:
What evidence, beyond opinion, shows this is the real problem?
Where does the problem actually start, as opposed to where it becomes visible?
Who proposed the solution, and would they have proposed the same answer regardless of the diagnosis?
What evidence would convince us that our diagnosis is wrong?
If this works, how will we know in 90 days, and how will we know it has held a year later?
If the answers are thin, the solution may still be right. But you are betting, not deciding. And the larger the investment, the more expensive that bet becomes.
What comes next
The first question is usually the hardest. The gap between organisational belief and organisational reality is rarely visible from the top. Most leaders see reports, summaries and indicators. The challenge is understanding whether those reflect what is actually happening.
