Skip to main content
Steady at the Top
← All articles

Is your turnaround problem strategic or behavioral?

A stalled turnaround needs a failure-location review before it needs another strategy announcement. Check whether the proposed action can produce the intended result, whether the company can perform it, and whether people can report obstacles honestly. Those are different problems, even when they appear in the same missed milestone.

Organizational readiness for change is a shared willingness to implement a particular change and a shared belief in the group’s capability to do it. This paraphrases the distinction between change commitment and change efficacy in Bryan Weiner’s 2009 theory. Readiness concerns implementation. It does not establish that the strategy being implemented is sound.

For your diagnosis, treat strategic weakness, operating constraints, and reporting behavior as separate hypotheses. The worksheet below is an advisory method, not a validated psychological instrument. Its purpose is to replace a general accusation about resistance with an inspectable account of where work stops.

Start with a promise that failed

Choose one consequential commitment, such as restoring reliable delivery for an important customer group. Gather the original promise and the work records associated with it. Avoid beginning with the broadest complaint in the board pack.

Write the commitment in a form someone can check: who would do what, for whom, by which agreed point? If the original promise lacks those elements, preserve that ambiguity. Do not rewrite a vague instruction into a precise instruction and then judge people against your improved version.

Ask the owner to reconstruct the work before you offer an explanation. Follow the decision from approval through execution to the customer’s experience. Look at the actual handoffs. A completed presentation is evidence that a presentation exists, not that the proposed operating change occurred.

The returning founder’s turnaround playbook supplies the broader reentry sequence. This review addresses a narrower question: which intervention does the missed commitment justify?

Separate the business logic from implementation

A strategy problem exists when the link between the action and the desired business result is weak or contradicted by evidence. Improving delivery speed will not resolve a customer’s objection if the product no longer meets the customer’s requirements. That is a hypothetical distinction, not a finding about your customers.

An implementation problem exists when the proposed action has a plausible rationale, but the organization cannot perform it as intended. Missing capacity, conflicting approvals, and an unavailable dependency belong here. Repeating the strategic rationale does not supply the missing resource.

A reporting problem concerns what reaches decision makers. People may provide incomplete accounts because records are poor, definitions differ, or previous responses made disclosure costly. Do not infer deliberate concealment from an incomplete report alone.

Weiner explicitly separates effective implementation from the effectiveness of the innovation being implemented. His paper develops a theory in healthcare settings. Applying that distinction to your turnaround is a reasoned use of the framework, not proof that it predicts your recovery.

Use the failure-location worksheet

Use the following sequence with a workstream owner and representatives of the adjacent functions. Write the evidence in ordinary language. An unresolved item should remain unresolved until someone checks it.

  1. Restate the promised outcome. Identify the customer or operating result that justified the work. Record the original wording beside your current interpretation.
  2. Test the causal link. Ask what must be true for the chosen action to produce that outcome. Attach the evidence supporting each critical assumption.
  3. Trace the work. List the decisions and handoffs needed to perform the action. Mark the earliest verified departure from the plan.
  4. Check capacity and authority. Establish whether the owner had the time, inputs, and permission needed at that departure point. Separate an assigned title from usable decision authority.
  5. Inspect disclosure. Compare when the obstacle became visible locally with when someone able to resolve it learned about it. Ask what happened when it was first raised.
  6. Choose a discriminating test. Specify an action that could weaken your preferred explanation. Assign an owner and a review point before expanding the intervention.

A worksheet entry should say something such as “pricing approval arrived after the delivery slot was released.” “The team lacks urgency” is an interpretation. It needs supporting behavior and competing explanations before it can guide a decision.

Look at how attention gets allocated

Inspect the route by which an obstacle reaches the turnaround agenda. William Ocasio’s 1997 attention-based theory connects a firm’s behavior with the issues and responses its decision makers attend to. Apply that idea to the reporting arrangement: which failed handoff appears in the review, and which disappears? The worksheet turns that question into a local investigation, rather than a conclusion that the strategy or an employee must be at fault.

Use it to inspect your meeting system. Which exceptions receive time? Which questions disappear because the agenda ends? Where must a problem be presented before someone can authorize a remedy?

If every review begins with new sales, unresolved delivery dependencies may remain outside the conversation. That is a possible mechanism to investigate. Check agendas and decisions before concluding it is happening.

Your own interventions belong in this inspection. If an urgent request from you displaces the workstream’s agreed priority, record that change. A diagnosis that excludes the CEO’s behavior will provide an incomplete picture of the system you control.

A composite scene: the recovery plan follows you home

Consider this hypothetical composite. You return from a customer dinner and open the same overdue delivery report at the kitchen counter. Your family has finished eating. You send another message asking why a supposedly simple fix remains unfinished.

The next morning, the operations leader says the team needs a clearer strategy. The commercial leader says operations lacks discipline. Each explanation points toward a different intervention, but neither identifies a specific failed handoff.

You select one overdue order. Its promised date assumed a component substitution that engineering had not approved. Engineering had flagged the risk in a different meeting. The account manager had continued using the original date because nobody had authority to revise the customer commitment.

In this constructed example, the first failure is an unverified assumption entering a promise. A later failure concerns escalation and decision ownership. The evidence does not yet establish whether the wider market strategy is wrong or whether any individual intended to mislead.

The immediate response is therefore bounded: require approval evidence before that substitution informs a delivery promise, and name who can renegotiate a date. Then examine comparable orders. Do not turn one reconstructed incident into a diagnosis of the whole company.

Test whether disagreement can reach you

An employee who reports a failed assumption takes an interpersonal risk. Amy Edmondson’s 1999 research relates team psychological safety to learning behavior. For the failure-location worksheet, inspect the response to that report and whether the evidence can change the next decision. This does not reveal an employee’s private motive or establish that a reassuring invitation has made the reporting process safe throughout the organization.

Industrial/organizational psychology, the psychology of work and organizations, offers this useful lens on disclosure. Ask for a recent occasion when someone challenged a delivery assumption. Trace the response and the subsequent operating decision.

Use an invitation with a clear boundary:

“I need to know where the plan becomes impossible in practice. Show me the earliest point, including anything I changed. We will distinguish raising the problem from responsibility for the underlying decision.”

Honor the distinction. A concern may reveal poor judgment that requires a separate performance conversation. Address it through a fair process rather than punishing the act of disclosure.

Consult employment counsel before using this inquiry for disciplinary decisions or collecting sensitive employee information. Keep the review focused on work records and necessary operating facts.

Match the intervention to the finding

If the business assumption fails, revise the proposal or run a bounded market test. More motivational language cannot establish customer demand. Specify what new evidence would support continuing.

If the dependency fails, change the handoff or the resource allocation. State what the receiving function must accept before the work proceeds. Check that the remedy does not move the bottleneck somewhere else.

If authority fails, identify the decision owner and the escalation threshold. A workstream owner should not need your personal intervention for every exception that falls within an agreed mandate.

If disclosure fails, change both the route and your response. An anonymous channel cannot compensate for a review process that treats unwelcome evidence as disloyalty. Inspect what happens after a concern reaches the channel.

Mixed findings are legitimate. You may need to revise a customer promise while also changing an approval process. Preserve the separate reasons so you can later tell which action affected which part of the problem.

Record the uncertainty explicitly

Give each unresolved question a retrieval task. If the customer requirement is unknown, name who will confirm it with the customer. If approval timing is disputed, identify the record that could settle it. Avoid assigning numerical confidence scores without a defined basis. A short statement about the missing evidence is more useful than a precise-looking probability built from impressions.

Review the diagnosis before widening it

Agree on the observation that would indicate progress. For the composite order problem, that might be verified approval before a new promise is issued. The later customer result belongs in the review too, but it answers a different question.

Also record what would disconfirm the diagnosis. If approved orders still fail at the same point, the substitution explanation was incomplete. Revise the account instead of defending the worksheet.

The first ninety days review can hold these checkpoints. The inherited executive team assessment addresses whether a role holder can perform the work once expectations and support are explicit.

Keep the decision-quality review separate from a retrospective verdict based only on results. A sensible diagnosis can encounter an unfavorable outcome. An unsupported diagnosis can benefit from luck.

The useful output is a short causal account with a next test: what failed, which evidence supports that explanation, what remains unknown, and who will check it. Start there before asking the organization to absorb another turnaround plan.

Take one missed milestone and identify the last point where the work could still proceed as planned. Ask what information, resource, or authorization became unavailable at the next point. Verify that boundary with both sides of the handoff. The resulting account may support a change to the strategy, the operating arrangement, or the reporting route. Keep the conclusion narrower than a general judgment about resistance to the turnaround.

Sources

Steady at the Top