Some of the most expensive recurring problems begin when an assumption quietly enters a decision as a fact.
A customer leaves.
A project misses another milestone.
Costs increase.
Performance falls.
A key employee resigns.
The leadership team naturally wants an explanation. And under pressure, explanations arrive quickly.
"The customer left because of price."
"The project team lacks accountability."
"Costs are rising because suppliers are exploiting us."
"People are leaving because competitors are paying more."
Perhaps.
But what do you actually know?
What do you believe?
And what have you inferred from incomplete information?
Failing to separate those three things can send an organisation into years of Karamawari.
Facts, Beliefs and Inferences Are Not the Same
Imagine customer complaints have increased 30%.
That is something you may know from reliable data.
You believe the increase reflects deteriorating service.
Then you infer that inadequate staffing is causing the service deterioration.
Those three statements can easily collapse into one:
"We have a staffing problem."
Now the solution appears obvious.
Recruit people.
Increase shifts.
Authorise overtime.
Restructure customer service.
Perhaps implement new workforce technology.
A considerable amount of activity can follow from an explanation that was never actually established.
The organisation has moved from evidence to intervention without noticing the assumptions in between.
The First Explanation Has Enormous Power
Humans dislike unexplained events.
When something happens, we construct a story that makes the available evidence coherent.
That ability is enormously useful.
It is also dangerous.
Once leadership believes it understands what is happening, subsequent information can be interpreted through that explanation.
If we believe poor accountability is causing project delays, missed deadlines become evidence of poor accountability.
If we believe employees resist change, objections become evidence of resistance.
If we believe price is causing customer losses, every price complaint reinforces the diagnosis.
The explanation gradually becomes harder to challenge because the organisation starts interpreting evidence through the explanation itself.
Soon an inference has acquired the status of fact.
Then the Organisation Starts Spending
This is where a thinking error becomes commercially significant.
A diagnosis creates action.
Action creates investment.
Investment creates commitment.
Consultants are engaged.
Technology is purchased.
Processes are redesigned.
People are recruited or replaced.
KPIs are changed.
Training programmes begin.
Six months later, the original problem improves slightly.
Everyone feels relieved.
Then it returns.
Now leadership faces an uncomfortable choice.
Question the original diagnosis, or conclude that the solution was insufficient.
Organisations frequently choose the latter.
So they do more.
More training.
More controls.
More technology.
More oversight.
More restructuring.
The cost of the original inference begins compounding.
This Is How Karamawari Begins
空回り, karamawari, describes effort that fails to translate into meaningful forward movement.
The important word is effort.
Karamawari does not require laziness, incompetence or indifference.
Quite the opposite.
Capable people can execute an inappropriate solution exceptionally well.
If leadership incorrectly concludes that customer complaints are caused by insufficient staffing, the organisation may build an excellent recruitment programme.
The programme succeeds.
Headcount increases.
Yet complaints continue.
The solution worked.
The problem didn't.
That distinction should trigger curiosity.
Instead, organisations often interpret it as evidence that another intervention is required.
The wheel spins faster.
Three Columns Can Change the Conversation
There is a deceptively simple discipline leadership teams can introduce when confronting a persistent problem.
Create three columns:
What do we know?
These are observations supported by evidence.
What do we believe?
These are explanations, interpretations or propositions we currently consider likely.
What are we inferring?
These are conclusions we have drawn by connecting pieces of information that may not themselves prove the conclusion.
Now examine the gaps.
The objective is not to eliminate beliefs or inference.
That would make decision-making impossible.
Executives constantly make decisions with incomplete information.
The objective is to stop treating different levels of certainty as though they are equivalent.
That creates something valuable: diagnostic humility without decision paralysis.
The Costliest Word May Be "Because"
Listen carefully during the next discussion of a recurring problem.
"We are missing targets because..."
"Customers are leaving because..."
"People aren't speaking up because..."
"Projects keep failing because..."
Everything after "because" deserves examination.
Ask:
How do we know?
What evidence would contradict this explanation?
What else could produce the same symptoms?
What have we observed directly, and what have we added to the story?
Those questions can feel slower than immediately solving the problem.
But repeatedly solving the wrong problem is considerably slower.
And considerably more expensive.
Before You Fund Another Solution, Inspect the Story
CEOs dealing with recurring problems are often surrounded by evidence of enormous organisational effort.
That can make another intervention feel necessary.
But when multiple competent solutions have failed to eliminate the same problem, the most valuable next step may not be another solution.
It may be reopening the diagnosis.
Separate observation from interpretation.
Separate belief from evidence.
Separate inference from fact.
Then trace the problem again.
Because sometimes the recurring problem is not surviving despite everything the organisation knows.
It is surviving because something the organisation merely believes has become something nobody thinks to question.
What expensive problem in your organisation is currently being "solved" on the strength of something everyone believes, but nobody has actually established to be true?
0 Comments