Some recurring problems become so familiar that organisations stop treating them as problems to solve and start treating them as limits they must live within.
For years, the four-minute mile represented such a limit.
Elite runners kept getting close. Records improved. Training advanced. Yet four minutes remained uncrossed.
Then, on 6 May 1954, Roger Bannister ran the mile in 3:59.4.
Forty-six days later, John Landy ran even faster.
Within three years, Landy and 15 other runners had joined Bannister below four minutes.
The familiar explanation is that Bannister proved people simply needed to believe.
There is a more useful lesson for CEOs.
An accepted explanation had lost its authority.
Bannister Didn't Suddenly Make Everyone Faster
John Landy did not become a fundamentally different athlete because Bannister crossed the line.
He was already extraordinarily fast.
The physical challenge remained exactly where it had been.
But something important had changed.
"Impossible" was no longer available as an explanation for why nobody could do it.
That matters because explanations do more than describe reality.
They can define the boundaries within which we attempt to change it.
Organisations do this constantly.
"That's how our industry works."
"The board would never accept that."
"Customers won't pay for it."
"We've always struggled with accountability."
"Our systems can't support it."
"We've tried everything."
At first, these statements may reasonably describe experience.
After enough repetition, something changes.
They become constraints.
Recurring Problems Create Their Own Explanations
Imagine an organisation repeatedly missing delivery commitments.
Leadership responds.
The structure changes.
A new executive is appointed.
Technology is introduced.
Governance is strengthened.
Reporting improves.
Project disciplines are tightened.
Each intervention is reasonable.
Some produce measurable improvements.
Yet twelve months later, delivery performance deteriorates again.
Eventually an explanation forms:
"This business has an execution problem."
Now future interventions begin inside that assumption.
The organisation searches for better ways to improve execution.
But perhaps execution was never the fundamental constraint.
Perhaps commitments are routinely made before capacity is tested.
Perhaps priorities continually enter the organisation without anything else stopping.
Perhaps commercial optimism wins work while Operations absorbs the consequences.
If those conditions survive every transformation, the organisation may repeatedly change everything except what recreates the problem.
What Did the Problem Survive?
This is where the history of attempted fixes becomes valuable.
CEOs often look backwards to determine what failed.
There is another question worth asking:
What survived?
Put the last five attempts to solve the recurring problem beside one another.
A restructure.
A technology implementation.
A process redesign.
A leadership change.
A governance programme.
Now ask two questions.
What did each intervention change?
And what did every intervention preserve?
That second question can be far more revealing.
Perhaps reporting changed five times but decision rights never did.
Perhaps leaders changed but incentives remained untouched.
Perhaps technology changed while the same unrealistic commitments continued entering the system.
Perhaps accountability increased while employees still learned that delivering bad news early carried a greater personal cost than delivering it late.
Different solutions.
Same underlying condition.
This Is Where Karamawari Takes Hold
空回り, karamawari, describes effort that fails to translate into meaningful forward movement.
Recurring organisational problems can become four-minute miles precisely because considerable effort has already been expended trying to solve them.
Ironically, every failed attempt can strengthen belief in the limit.
"We've already tried restructuring."
"We've replaced the leadership team."
"We spent millions on the system."
"We brought in consultants."
"We strengthened governance."
The evidence appears overwhelming.
The problem must simply be extraordinarily difficult.
Perhaps.
But recurrence may be telling you something else.
Every solution may have preserved the same condition.
If so, trying harder within the same explanation simply creates more sophisticated Karamawari.
Repetition Can Make a Problem Respectable
There is a subtle transition CEOs should watch for.
A problem happens once and people challenge it.
It happens repeatedly and people explain it.
It persists for years and people design around it.
Budgets accommodate it.
Forecasts allow for it.
Customers are managed around it.
Extra capacity compensates for it.
Management routines incorporate it.
Eventually the recurring problem becomes part of how the organisation understands itself.
"This is just a difficult business."
That is the organisational equivalent of standing at 4:00.2 and deciding the remaining fraction represents an immutable law.
Sometimes the barrier genuinely is real.
But repetition alone does not prove that.
Find Your Four-Minute Mile
For CEOs fed up with paying repeatedly for the same problems, the next intervention should not necessarily begin with another solution.
Begin with the previous ones.
Lay them out chronologically.
Look beyond whether they succeeded or failed.
Identify what changed each time.
Then identify the conditions that remained untouched throughout all of them.
That is where the organisation may discover the invisible boundary around its thinking.
Bannister's achievement mattered not because running suddenly became easier.
It mattered because an accepted limit could no longer explain what was possible.
Organisations need similar moments.
Not motivational speeches about believing harder, but evidence strong enough to challenge explanations that recurrence has made respectable.
Because sometimes the most persistent constraint is not inside the problem.
It is inside the explanation everyone has learned to accept for why the problem keeps returning.
What is your organisation's four-minute mile, and what might become possible if you stopped asking why every solution failed and started asking what every solution left untouched?
0 Comments