In the S.M.A.R.T. example, 5 of 12 priorities shared one resource

By Brian Smith, Founder, IA Business Advisors | Coauthor, The “I” in Team Series

One of business leadership's most important responsibilities is recognizing when something that once worked no longer produces the results an organization needs. That sounds relatively straightforward. Yet I have seen businesses keep following familiar practices long after the conditions that made them successful have changed.

Sometimes the warning signs are obvious. Customers become dissatisfied, employees struggle to meet expectations, projects take longer than anticipated, and decisions that once seemed reasonable begin creating problems elsewhere in the organization.

Other times, the signs are much harder to recognize because the business still generates revenue and meets some of its financial objectives. The challenge is that past success can make it difficult for leaders to question the decisions and assumptions behind it.

When a business repeatedly faces the same problems, leadership must examine the decisions, systems, and behaviors that let them continue.

Most businesses develop routines because those routines help them operate effectively.

A company finds a reliable way to serve customers, and employees become familiar with established processes. Managers learn which decisions they can make quickly and which require further discussion. Over time, these practices become part of the organization's operating culture.

There is considerable value in consistency. Employees need clear expectations, customers need dependable service, and business owners need processes that produce predictable results.

However, consistency can become a problem when leaders stop evaluating whether established practices still serve the organization.

Consider a business that has relied on the same customer onboarding process for several years. Initially, the process may have worked extremely well. The company had fewer customers, a smaller team, and a relatively straightforward service offering. As the business expanded, however, customer requirements became more complicated.

The original process remained unchanged.

Sales continued promising delivery timelines based on the old operating model. Operations struggled to accommodate additional requirements. Employees began spending more time resolving issues that could have been addressed earlier.

Management might interpret these problems as employee performance issues. But the underlying problem may be that the business has outgrown the process it still follows.

This is why leaders must periodically question the assumptions behind their decisions.

A process should support the organization's current objectives, capabilities, and customer expectations. Its historical success does not guarantee that it remains appropriate.

One of the more concerning situations I encounter in business is when recurring problems become accepted as normal.

A customer complaint is treated as an isolated incident. A missed deadline is explained as an unusually busy week. An employee repeatedly needs assistance because responsibilities are unclear. A manager spends hours correcting work that should have been completed properly the first time.

Individually, these situations may appear manageable.

Collectively, they can reveal weaknesses in the way the organization operates.

For example, imagine a company that regularly misses project deadlines. Leadership responds by asking employees to work harder, providing additional reminders, and increasing the frequency of progress meetings.

Those actions may create temporary improvements. But if the actual problem is unrealistic scheduling, unclear ownership, or insufficient resources, the underlying issue remains.

Employees become frustrated because the organization asks them to improve their performance without examining the conditions affecting it.

Eventually, management may begin questioning employees' commitment or capabilities.

That is when a process problem can turn into a people problem.

Some leaders immediately want to know who made the mistake. Others focus on protecting the organization from criticism. In both cases, the discussion can shift to assigning responsibility rather than understanding what happened.

Accountability is important. Individuals must accept responsibility for their decisions and commitments. However, accountability should also encourage organizations to examine whether expectations, processes, and available resources were appropriate.

Consider a project that fails to meet its expected deadline.

The employee responsible for coordinating the work may have missed an important milestone. That individual should be prepared to explain what happened and take responsibility for their part.

But leadership should also consider several other questions.

Was the deadline realistic?

Were the required resources available?

Did everyone understand their responsibilities?

Were potential delays communicated early enough?

Did management change priorities while the project was underway?

In my experience, organizations become stronger when employees can raise concerns, acknowledge mistakes, and discuss problems without assuming that every difficult conversation will become an exercise in blame.

That environment lets leaders spot issues earlier and make better decisions.

First, revisit the original assumption.

What did leadership believe would happen when the decision was made? Were those expectations based on reliable information, past experience, or untested assumptions?

Second, examine how the organization implemented the decision.

Even a sound decision can produce disappointing results when responsibilities are unclear, communication is inconsistent, or the organization lacks the resources to execute it.

Third, identify what must change.

Determine whether the business needs a different process, clearer expectations, additional training, revised priorities, or a change in the original decision. Assign responsibility for the next action and establish when progress will be reviewed.

The objective is to ensure the organization does not simply recognize what went wrong. It must use that understanding to improve what happens next.

Businesses change as they grow. Customer expectations evolve, employees develop new capabilities, technology creates different opportunities, and competitive conditions shift.

The decisions that helped establish an organization may not be the decisions that take it into its next stage of growth.

That does not mean leaders should abandon everything that has worked. It means they must remain willing to examine their assumptions and recognize when a different approach is necessary.

Over time, I have come to believe that one of an effective organization's most valuable qualities is its ability to learn from its own experience.

That ability begins with leadership.

Leaders must ask difficult questions, listen to the people closest to the work, accept responsibility for their influence, and ensure lessons lead to meaningful action.

An organization that does this consistently gives itself a chance to improve before small problems become major setbacks.

A business does not become stronger simply because it has experienced challenges. It becomes stronger when its people understand those experiences, take responsibility for what happens next, and use what they have learned to make better decisions.

That is one of our most important responsibilities as leaders.

Brian Smith is the founder of IA Business Advisors and coauthor, with Mary Griffin, of the three-book series The “I” in Team: Individual Influence, Positive Influence, and Responsible Influence..

WEEKLY RECOMMENDATION

FEATURED VIDEO

SMB SIGNALS

EVENTS

HR Source’s annual Employment Law Conference brings HR professionals, business leaders, and employment law specialists to NIU Naperville. After an opening keynote from Natalie Siston, breakout sessions cover workplace accommodations, overlapping leave laws, how to determine whether a worker is an employee, contractor, intern, or volunteer, and how to prevent workplace violence. A case study session looks at what happens when documentation, discipline, and competing legal obligations collide. The day closes with an Employment Law Update from HR Source Chief Legal Counsel Kelly Hayden on recent court decisions and how they affect company policies and practices. IA Business Advisors is sponsoring and exhibiting. Attendees can stop by during exhibitor breaks.

Hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the B20 USA Summit brings together business leaders and policymakers from across the world to discuss global commerce, investment, and economic priorities.

MORE TO READ

WEEKLY INSIGHT

"The best leaders don't just adapt to change — they anticipate it and prepare their teams."

— SMART Advantage Team