When medieval doctors didn’t know what to do (and they often didn’t), they recommended bloodletting. Fever? Let some blood. Headache? Let some blood. Melancholy? Let more blood. The method was simple, quick, and gave the doctor the sense that he had done something very concrete. A few centuries later, we can laugh at this, understanding that the healer was not addressing the real cause of the ailment, but only a metaphysical conception of it.
Business has its own equivalents of bloodletting. A change in leadership, a new agency, another reorganization, a revision of the offering – these are all invasive measures, appearing to be serious attempts at treatment – that give management a sense of agency. However, they will have no measurable effect unless they target the specific source of the problem. And for that, a thorough, patient diagnostic process is needed.
Sometimes Rutinoscorbin Isn’t Enough
Let’s start with a frank admission: most founders can identify operational problems in their company on their own. If I haven’t called leads for three weeks, haven’t followed up with clients, or haven’t sent out offers on time – I don’t need an outside strategist to tell me that. I know exactly where a bad month comes from. All it takes is a piece of paper, a pen, and a review of my notes.
It’s like having a cold. We go to bed, take some vitamin C, drink that nasty onion syrup, and in three days we’re back on our feet. This kind of “treatment” is quick, cheap, and can be done without consulting a specialist.
The problem begins when, despite implementing popular over-the-counter remedies – that is, procedures, adjustments, a new sales director, or a change in marketing agency – nothing in our situation changes. This is a worrying sign. Not a scream, but a clear signal: what seemed superficial may have roots much deeper.
This is where we reach the limits of self-diagnosis.
In love with our own company
I’m sure you’re familiar with this mechanism. We see what we want to see. We hear what we want to hear from customers, potential partners, and the market. We’re particularly good at hearing confirmation of our own brilliant hypotheses and particularly adept at ignoring signals that contradict them in any way.
We recently had such a case. The owner of a company with an interesting, truly innovative product had been “gaining” market interest for months. He held talks, collected declarations, and generated enthusiasm at meetings. He took this as validation. The problem was that real business proof isn’t smiles or kind words, but only signed contracts and money transferred. There were none of those. None at all.
As founders, we tend to fall in love with our own ideas. This is understandable, because without this ability, no one would start companies. Since we offer our services to others, at some point we decided they were valuable. But the very trait that drives us forward can cause us to spend years treating a disease we don’t have – while the one we’ve actually caught quietly spreads, affecting more and more organs.
„As founders, we tend to fall in love with our own ideas. That’s understandable”.
Importantly, and I always emphasize this, this impulse doesn’t stem from ill will or stupidity. It stems from a good impulse: we want to help; we want to alleviate the pain as quickly as possible – whether our own or that of the organization we lead. The problem is that this same drive to act – which is generally a virtue in business – can actually be a hindrance in the diagnostic process. The most common mistake in problem-solving, regardless of industry or organization size, is exactly this. We rush straight to a solution before we understand what we’re actually dealing with. The result is treating the symptom, not the disease. And relapses that occur from time to time – less and less surprising, but cumulatively more and more costly.
That is why self-diagnosis is safe only within a narrow range. Most often when the problem is obvious, short-lived, and allows for a margin where we can afford potential mistakes. Beyond that range, we start needing someone from the outside.
Three questions from the lead consultant
I’m not saying that every business owner should immediately pick up the phone and order a strategic service. Quite the opposite. I believe that before speaking with me or another specialist, an entrepreneur should ask themselves a few specific questions.
- First, how much time do I have to try to fix the situation on my own?
- Second, what is the cost of failure if the actions I take turn out to be misguided?
- Third – and perhaps most importantly: what exactly will I do, and what do I actually expect from these actions?
This exercise isn’t particularly sophisticated. It’s simply a matter of weighing the risks. If I answer these questions honestly and conclude that I have three months, the margin of error is acceptable, and the actions are feasible on my own – there’s nothing stopping me from trying to act on my own. I implement my ideas, measure the results, and see if the situation changes as I predicted.
If I measure progress and something has shifted in the right direction – I continue. Perhaps the problem really was exactly where I thought it was.
If, on the other hand, I sit and count that over the past two years I’ve changed the sales director three times, the marketing agency six times, and the prices – I’ve lost count of how many times – I’m clearly wasting my time and resources. This means that not only have I failed to properly diagnose the problem, but I’ve actually become part of it. The opportunity cost of these “corrective” actions has likely long since exceeded the price of a good consultant. Sometimes even tenfold.
„If (…) over the past two years I’ve changed the sales director three times, the marketing agency six times, and the prices – I’ve lost count of how many times – I’m clearly wasting my time and resources”.
And one more scenario that shouldn’t be subject to any calculation. Let’s call it a business heart attack. If I have direct competition in the market that’s starting to take my customers away, people are leaving the organization, and the pipeline is slipping through my fingers. I don’t wait for it to pass. I don’t take a routine vitamin C supplement for it. I immediately call 911, hoping to get an experienced cardiologist on the line.
Don't just fix the symptoms. Start with a diagnosis
A poor diagnosis confirms; a good one rules out
If we’ve decided to consult an outside specialist, it’s worth knowing what to expect from the consultation. And what a good diagnostician shouldn’t do.
A good diagnosis, above all, rules things out. It doesn’t confirm the initial suspicion, nor does it send the client to the pharmacy after an hour. It systematically rules out successive sources of the problem. This means questions – often a whole host of various questions. Interviews with management and key people in the organization – preferably one-on-one, because people say different things in a group than they do in private. A review of the company’s history: what worked, what didn’t, and which symptoms have recurred in the past. Analysis of financial data, CRM, ERP, and often external data as well – market data, competitor data, and industry trends.
But there is one more element that is easy to overlook. Surprisingly, many diagnoses turn out to be wrong not because of bad questions, but because they were asked exclusively at the conference table. Sometimes you simply have to see the process in action. What does a salesperson look like three hours into a conversation with a difficult customer? How does onboarding a new employee work in practice? Where exactly does a lead get lost in the entire sales pipeline? It’s different to treat the story of a problem rather than the problem itself. And stories about problems are always more coherent and understandable than the problems themselves.
These are the “additional blood tests and X-rays” that complete the patient’s clinical picture.
A good strategist – much like an experienced doctor – usually knows quite a lot after ten hours of face-to-face conversations. They have at least hypotheses. Solid hypotheses that they validate with data in subsequent stages. This order is, of course, crucial: first the hypothesis, then validation. Not the other way around, because reversing this process inevitably leads to a situation where we seek data to confirm what we have already assumed. This would be precisely the cognitive error I described above in the context of self-diagnosis.
Personally, I consider the following to be the hallmarks of a good diagnosis: speed of validation, accuracy, and precision. The point is not to conduct a massive strategic process for seven months and then present a conclusion in a bound folder at the end. We always strive to identify as quickly as possible the symptoms that tell an experienced specialist: here and here are the sources of the problem, and here is the logical path to solving them.
A diagnosis is sound if it can be grounded in the actual context of the organization being analyzed. If the path from data to conclusion can be traced step by step, without obvious gaps. And if the proposed solution is a process – not some trite slogan that explains everything.
The latter is a clear indicator of whether we are dealing with an expert or a charlatan. I have yet to encounter a problem of such a nature that it could be solved with a single sentence. If someone presents you with such a sentence – I would advise you to think twice before signing any contract.
Supplementation, antibiotics, amputation
Let’s return to the metaphor in the title, as it highlights the practical aspect of a strategist’s work. Once a diagnosis has been made, it must be backed up by an appropriate treatment plan. Half-jokingly, half-seriously, there are three paths to recovery:
Supplementation
By this I mean correcting habits, streamlining processes, and improving the rhythm of operations. The company is generally healthy, but it could operate more efficiently. After all, one can always be healthier. All it takes is to address deficiencies, improve the diet, and take a few vitamins.
Antibiotics
Deeper intervention, elimination of a specific inflammation. The company has a real problem – structural, process-related, or personnel-related – that requires decisive action and time to recover. The current state could lead to serious complications, but the situation is still reversible.
Amputation
A difficult, painful decision, but necessary under certain circumstances. When the business model lacks market validation, when the product doesn’t sell despite numerous attempts, when gangrene begins to spread throughout the entire organization – prolonging this situation will only cause harm to everyone involved. You have to sacrifice the infected part to save the whole.
Telling the owner this is the hardest part of a good consultant’s job. But it’s also the most important. The difference between a good strategist and one who cares only about extending the contract lies precisely in this: the willingness to say unpleasant things, rather than just nodding along and issuing more invoices.
I don’t go to the doctor so he can tell me I have nice glasses. If I’m not taking care of myself and my decisions are shortening my life, I want him to give me a piece of his mind – while, of course, explaining what I’m doing wrong. And I want us to work together to establish a treatment plan that has a chance of working.
Diagnosis at first glance
One last point – perhaps the most important from a practical standpoint. Choosing a consultant isn’t a decision that should be based on a nice website or an impressive client list in a presentation. Instead, during the very first meeting, pay attention: is the consultant asking the right questions? Do the conclusions they draw sound logical and accurate? Are they saying things you want to hear, or things that align with the facts – and can they themselves distinguish between these two categories?
Check what they’ve accomplished in their professional career. What experiences can they draw upon? Has he diagnosed organizations similar to yours? And if so, has he done it three times, thirty times, or three hundred times? “Domain” knowledge helps, but the real key remains strategic knowledge – that is, the ability to examine relationships between data and quickly formulate verifiable hypotheses.
A misdiagnosis in medicine can, in some cases, lead to years of treating a disease the patient never had. In business, the mechanism is nearly identical. Only the costs can be incomparably higher.
Is choosing a consultant, then, the most important decision in the entire strategic process? Certainly one of the most important, because it determines whether the entire designed process will make any sense at all.
In strategy, the most costly decisions are those made without a professional diagnosis. That’s why, before you implement the next change, it’s worth pausing for a moment to see what’s really going on in your company. If you want to go through this process with someone who’s done it hundreds of times – get in touch with us.
