Principles

When an outcome is not achieved, people usually look first at the individual.

Sales are not growing – the head of sales is not up to the job.

Projects are late – the project manager is weak.

The team is not functioning – the team leader does not know how to manage people.

Clients are unhappy – customer service staff are not trying hard enough.

Sometimes the problem really does lie with the person.

But the same outcome can arise when a good person is placed in a poorly designed role or the organisation is built in a way that makes the expected outcome almost impossible to achieve.

These are three different problems.

Each requires a different solution.

If the problem lies with the person, they need to be developed, moved into a different role or let go.

If the problem lies in the role, filling the same position with someone new will not help.

If the problem lies in the organisational design, changing one role will not fix the whole.

The most expensive mistake is not always hiring the wrong person.

It may be replacing the right person before the company has understood what problem it actually asked them to solve.

First define which outcome was not achieved

“They can't handle it” is not a diagnosis.

“They are not strategic enough” is not a measurable outcome.

“They do not take responsibility” may describe a person's behaviour, but it may also describe a system in which taking responsibility gives them no authority to decide anything.

Before looking for the cause, clearly describe:

• what outcome was expected;
• within what timeframe;
• at what level of quality;
• with what resources;
• what the specific person was responsible for;
• which parts of the outcome depended on other people;
• what outcome was actually achieved.

If the expected outcome was not unambiguous from the outset, it is not yet fair to decide that the person failed.

The leader and employee may simply have acted on different assumptions.

Diagnosing the problem must begin with facts, not a judgement about the person's character.

When is the problem likely to lie with the person?

The problem may lie with the person when the role, expectations and working conditions are sufficiently clear, but they are unable or unwilling to carry the necessary responsibility.

This may be indicated by situations where:

• the expected outcome has been agreed unambiguously;
• the person has the necessary decision-making authority;
• the required information and tools are available;
• others achieve the outcome in similar circumstances;
• the problem recurs across different tasks and working relationships;
• the person does not implement agreed changes;
• performance improves only briefly after feedback;
• the person avoids responsibility even when they are able to decide;
• they lack the necessary expertise and cannot acquire it within a reasonable time;
• the role's demands do not fit their strengths, way of working or motivation;
• their reliability, adherence to agreements or behaviour falls below the organisation's minimum standard.

Even then, this does not automatically mean they are a bad employee.

They may be in the wrong role or the wrong company.

A good specialist may not be suited to management. A strong originator of ideas may not be the person who consistently completes repetitive operational work. A fast problem-solver suited to an early-stage business may not fit an environment where outcomes depend on standards, planning and managing other people.

What appears to be a problem with the person may actually be a problem of fit.

The question is not only whether someone knows how to do something.

It is whether they can and want to do this particular work in the particular way the company's outcome requires.

When is the problem in the role?

A role is poorly designed when its responsibility, work and decision-making authority do not form an achievable whole.

The person in such a role may be strong, but the outcome will remain unstable.

A poorly designed role can be recognised, for example, when:

• the role contains many activities but lacks one clear outcome;
• the person is accountable for an outcome they cannot influence sufficiently;
• the role combines conflicting tasks;
• the workload exceeds one person's realistic capacity;
• several leaders set priorities at the same time;
• the role's boundaries overlap with other people's responsibilities;
• no one knows which decisions belong to the person in the role;
• success constantly depends on extraordinary intervention by the leader;
• the role was built around the strengths of the previous incumbent rather than the company's actual need;
• the company's stage of development has changed, but the role has remained the same.

For example, a head of sales may be accountable for revenue but have no influence over the target audience, pricing, composition of the sales team or offering.

A project manager may be accountable for the deadline but unable to influence the scope, resources or priorities.

An HR leader may be accountable for culture even though leaders' day-to-day behaviour shapes culture far more than any HR programme.

People in such roles can be measured and pressured.

Achieving the outcome is much harder.

Some roles contain several different jobs

In young companies, roles are often built around whichever activities currently have no one to do them.

One person may become responsible for:

• marketing;
• sales support;
• partnerships;
• client communication;
• project coordination;
• organising data;
• internal communication.

Each activity may seem small in isolation.

Together, they may require entirely different strengths, ways of working and priorities.

One part requires creativity and experimentation.

Another requires precision and consistency.

A third requires rapid responses.

A fourth requires long-term focus.

The company then finds someone who is expected to be good at everything at once.

When the outcome is not achieved, it appears that the candidate was wrong.

In reality, the company may have created a role that no person could perform exceptionally well.

A role is not a list of activities to give someone.

It is a coherent area of responsibility within which a person can influence a specific outcome through their decisions.

A role can become wrong even after a successful start

The person may previously have been highly successful in the role.

Then the company grew.

The number of clients increased. The team became larger. The work became standardised. A role that had once required doing the work personally began to require managing others.

Or the reverse: a previously stable function entered a phase of change that required experimentation, tolerance of uncertainty and building a new system.

The job title remained the same.

The content of the work changed.

If someone no longer achieves the outcome in the new situation, that does not prove they were the wrong choice from the beginning.

The company's needs may simply have outgrown their role.

The leader's job is to notice when:

• a specialist role becomes a management role;
• a creator's role becomes one of managing a system;
• a general problem-solver must begin to assume clear functional responsibility;
• early-stage speed must give way to repeatability and quality;
• the current leader can no longer handle the expanded area of responsibility.

A changed role must not be hidden behind an old job title.

When is the problem in the organisational design?

An organisational design problem is not confined to one person or one role.

It recurs across teams and processes.

Signs of a structural problem may include situations where:

• several departments are responsible for the same outcome;
• a critical outcome clearly belongs to no one;
• work passes through too many people and approvals;
• departmental metrics set departments against one another;
• decision-making authority sits too far from the information;
• one leader has to resolve most cross-functional conflicts;
• problems arise mainly at handovers;
• the client's overall outcome is divided among many roles;
• the formal structure does not reflect how work actually happens;
• critical knowledge or decision-making depends on a small number of individuals;
• leaders of different departments give the same person conflicting priorities;
• the company's size and complexity have grown, but its management model has not changed.

In such a company, everyone may be acting reasonably from their own perspective.

Sales wants more deals.

Production wants fewer exceptions.

Marketing wants a broader target audience.

Finance wants lower costs.

Customer support wants faster fixes.

If the company's shared outcome and decision-making logic are unclear, each part optimises its own performance.

The problem does not necessarily lie with the people.

The organisation has been designed in a way that creates conflict between them.

The organisational chart does not always show the organisation's true design

On paper, responsibility may appear clear.

Everyone has a job title, a manager and a place in the structure.

The actual work may move in a completely different way.

Every important decision reaches the founder.

One experienced employee informally coordinates several departments.

Project managers are responsible for the client, but functional leaders decide how people's time is used.

Employees ask for help from people who officially have no connection to that outcome.

A manager may exist in the structure but have no genuine authority to decide.

The organisation's true design becomes visible in:

• where decisions move;
• who holds critical information;
• who resolves exceptions;
• whose approval people actually wait for;
• whose absence brings work to a halt;
• who is accountable when departmental objectives conflict.

When the formal structure and the actual way of working differ, people begin to work between two systems.

One system states who is accountable.

In the other, people know whose permission they actually need.

Such an organisation makes good performance unnecessarily difficult.

Misplaced responsibility creates an apparent people problem

Sometimes responsibility is assigned to the person who sees the consequence of a problem rather than the person who can influence its cause.

Customer support is responsible for satisfaction even though the cause of dissatisfaction lies in sales or the product.

The project manager is responsible for profitability even though someone else sold the price and promised the scope.

The HR leader is responsible for employee retention even though people leave because of their direct manager.

The finance director is responsible for cost control even though investment decisions are made elsewhere.

When responsibility is placed in the wrong location, the company does gain someone from whom it can demand an explanation.

It does not gain someone capable of solving the problem.

It then appears that the accountable person is not up to the job.

In reality, they are being measured on an outcome whose cause lies beyond their influence.

The wrong diagnosis produces the next wrong decision

If the role is broken but the problem is attributed to the person, the company hires someone new to replace them.

At first, the situation seems better. The new person brings energy, asks questions and uses their experience to solve some of the problems.

A few months later, the same difficulties emerge.

The company may conclude that the second candidate was also wrong.

If the organisational structure is broken but only the role is repaired, a new job description is written, the title is changed or another management layer is added.

The overall outcome does not change because cross-functional responsibility and decision-making logic remain the same.

The opposite mistake is to redesign the whole organisation because of one poor employee.

Controls, reports and approvals are added even though the real issue was the particular person's fit or performance.

The wrong diagnosis makes the company more complex while leaving the original problem in place.

How do you diagnose the level at which the problem lies?

Diagnosis should begin at the smallest possible level while always examining its surroundings as well.

1. Define the outcome that was not achieved

Not “the person cannot handle the job,” but, for example, “too small a share of qualified sales opportunities reach a decision.”

2. Determine what the outcome depends on

Which inputs, decisions, people, tools and processes must function for the outcome to be achieved?

3. Examine the person's scope of influence

Which parts of the outcome can the person control directly, and which can they only influence?

4. Test the logic of the role

Do the responsibility, decision-making authority, resources and workload form a realistic whole?

5. Look for a recurring pattern

Does the same problem occur in other roles, departments or successive employees?

6. Examine handovers

Many structural problems become visible precisely at the boundaries between departments or roles.

7. Make a limited change

Give the person the decision-making authority they lack, clarify the role, remove a conflicting objective or fix one critical input.

8. Measure whether the outcome changes

If the outcome improves after a change to the system or role, the problem did not lie solely with the person.

If all necessary conditions exist and the result still does not change, the question of the person's fit becomes much clearer.

Seven questions to check the person

The problem is more likely to lie with the person if the answer to the following questions is yes:

1. Was the expected outcome clear and reasonable?
2. Did the person have the necessary expertise or a realistic opportunity to acquire it?
3. Did they have sufficient decision-making authority to achieve the outcome?
4. Did the necessary inputs, resources and collaboration function?
5. Did they receive clear feedback in time?
6. Did the problem recur after obstacles were removed and support was provided?
7. Can others achieve the outcome under similar conditions?

If most answers are no, there is not yet enough evidence that the problem lies primarily with the person.

Seven questions to check the role

The problem is more likely to lie in the role if:

1. The role lacks one clear primary outcome.
2. Responsibility and decision-making authority do not align.
3. The role combines conflicting ways of working or priorities.
4. The workload does not realistically fit within one person's responsibility.
5. The role's boundaries overlap with other roles.
6. Success constantly depends on intervention by the leader or a key individual.
7. Several different people have failed in similar ways in the same role.

In that case, the role must be redesigned before looking for a new person.

Seven questions to check the organisational design

The problem is more likely to lie in the organisational structure if:

1. The same problem recurs in several departments.
2. Several people are responsible for a critical outcome at once, or no one is.
3. Work gets stuck mainly at handovers between roles.
4. Departmental objectives set departments against one another.
5. Important decisions accumulate with one leader.
6. Formal responsibility and actual decision-making sit in different places.
7. The company's operating model depends on constant cross-functional rescue efforts.

In this situation, hiring a new person or correcting one job description is not enough.

The company must change how accountability for the overall outcome is distributed across responsibilities, decisions and collaboration.

A good organisation makes a person's true capability visible

A good system does not guarantee that everyone will succeed.

It does, however, create fair conditions for assessing a person's capability.

It makes visible:

• what outcome was expected;
• what responsibility belonged to the person;
• which decisions they could make;
• what resources they had;
• which dependencies affected the outcome;
• what support and feedback they received;
• what outcome was ultimately achieved.

In a bad system, a weak performer can hide behind the confusion.

At the same time, a strong person may appear average because most of their energy goes into compensating for shortcomings in the system.

A clear organisational design is therefore not merely a matter of efficiency.

It is also a prerequisite for making the right people decisions.

Do not fix the person before you understand their work

The person, the role and the organisation influence one another.

The problem may lie in one of them.

Or in all three at once.

The wrong person may be in a poorly designed role surrounded by an unclear organisation.

That is why looking for someone to blame quickly is unwise.

You need to find where the outcome actually breaks down.

If a person lacks the capability or willingness to carry responsibility even under clear and reasonable conditions, a decision must be made about the person.

If strong people fail one after another in the same role, stop blaming the candidates and fix the role.

If good performance in different roles is blocked by the same structural conflicts, change the organisational design.

A good leader does not ask only, “Do we have the right person?”

They ask three questions:

Do we have the right person?

Have they been given the right role?

Is the company designed so that success in this role is possible at all?

Only after answering all three can the right people decision be made.

Mikk OrglaanChalleng.ist