AmyNicole Ellis

Before You Fix the Problem, Understand What Started It

When something goes wrong in business, we tend to focus on what we can see. Performance drops, a strong employee disengages, decisions slow down, communication breaks down, turnover increases, or a change initiative stalls. Those are real problems, but they may not be where the problem started.

After more than 20 years in human resources, I became increasingly aware of something: by the time a problem becomes visible enough to demand attention, something has often been happening beneath it for much longer. We respond to the outcome because the outcome is what finally got our attention.

An employee resigns, so the conversation becomes about retention. A team misses a deadline, so the conversation becomes about performance. People stop speaking up, so the conversation becomes about communication. But before deciding what needs to be fixed, there is another question worth asking: What happened before that?

That question became especially real for me through one of my own workplace experiences.

The Resignation Started Before the Notice

I once worked for an organization where I was deeply committed to my job. Then, during a safety meeting, my manager publicly addressed an issue involving me that could have been handled privately.

I did not resign that day, and I continued doing my job. From the outside, there may not have appeared to be a significant change. Internally, however, something had shifted. My trust in the relationship changed, and so did my willingness to give more than what was required.

Eventually, I left.

It would have been easy to treat my resignation as the problem. It was not. The resignation was simply the visible outcome of a shift that had happened much earlier.

What Became Visible Last Is Not Always What Started First

This is where organizations can move too quickly.

When a problem surfaces, the instinct is usually to act. A new process is created. Another meeting is scheduled. Training is introduced. A policy is rewritten. Another initiative is launched.

Sometimes those responses are necessary. But if we have not examined what contributed to the condition, we may end up responding to the evidence while missing what produced it.

Consider an employee who has stopped offering ideas. Leadership may interpret the behavior as disengagement, but perhaps she repeatedly raised concerns that went nowhere. Perhaps disagreement was treated as resistance. Perhaps she learned that speaking up created more friction than remaining quiet.

Over time, silence can become the safer choice.

At that point, asking, "How do we get employees to speak up?" addresses the visible condition. Asking, "What happened that taught them not to?" takes the investigation further.

That distinction matters because the same behavior can mean very different things depending on what happened before it.

Leaders Can Be Misread Too

This issue does not only apply to employees. Organizations can also misread leaders.

A leader who needs time before making an important decision may be labeled indecisive. Someone who identifies dysfunction others have learned to tolerate may be viewed as difficult. A leader who is not carrying every piece of execution personally may be perceived as disengaged.

Once an interpretation becomes accepted as fact, the organization often begins responding to that interpretation. The focus turns to fixing indecisiveness, attitude, engagement, or leadership style before anyone has determined whether the situation was read correctly in the first place.

That misread can have broader consequences. It can contribute to delayed decisions, weakened trust, reduced discretionary effort, and eventually the loss of talented people.

What appears to be a performance issue may actually be a decision issue. What looks like resistance may be a response to how change is being introduced. What appears to be disengagement may have started with a breakdown in trust.

The visible outcome still matters. It simply may not tell the whole story.

Before You Fix It, Read It

The goal is not to analyze a problem indefinitely. It is to interrupt the reaction long enough to make sure the organization is responding to the right thing.

Before deciding what needs to change, leaders should look backward. What happened before performance shifted? When did communication begin to change? What occurred before someone disengaged? What assumptions are being made about the people involved? What has become normal inside the organization that may deserve closer examination?

Those questions can change the conversation.

Because solving the wrong problem well still leaves you with the problem.

Sometimes the most important question a leader can ask is not, "What do we need to fix?"

It is, "What haven't we read yet?"