I have spent a lot of time around businesses where people are working hard, doing their best, and still not getting the operational results the organisation needs.  Not because they are careless. Not because they lack commitment. Often, the operation has changed around them gradually.

On the surface, a business may describe itself quite simply.

A volume clothing manufacturer might say: “We just manufacture garments.”

But inside the operation, there are fabric suppliers, cutting schedules, production lines, machine availability, multiple hand-offs, labour planning, pattern changes, quality checks, rework loops, seasonal demand, late customer changes, dispatch pressure, and managers relying on spreadsheets, experience, and institutional memory to keep things moving.

A service-oriented call centre may describe itself just as simply: “We just handle customer queries.”

But inside that operation, there are call volumes, service levels, queue times, first-contact resolution targets, escalation paths, knowledge bases, agent availability, training gaps, system delays, repeat contacts, customer frustration, handoffs to back-office teams, and team leaders trying to balance speed, quality, compliance, and morale in real time.

More often than not, none of this feels unusual to the people inside the business. It is familiar, expected, and therefore easy to underestimate.  It’s the normal daily operational cadence. And that is where the risk begins.  When you live inside an operation long enough, complexity starts to feel ‘normal’.  The workaround becomes the process.  The delay becomes expected.  The rework becomes part of the rhythm.  The spreadsheet that only one person really understands becomes “how we do planning.”

Good leaders are not blind to problems.  They are often too close to inherited or evolved complexity to see which problems have become normalised and what they are simply ‘accepting’ as ‘the way things are done’.  The cost is rarely one dramatic failure.  It shows up quietly.  A few missed delivery dates.  Frequent overtime.  Quality issues that keep returning. Supervisors spending more time chasing than leading.  Customers becoming less patient.  Margins tightening even though everyone is busy.  The business is working hard, but the performance gap remains.

One reason for this is what psychologists call ‘inattentive blindness’.  We tend to see only what we are looking for.  If the leadership team is focused on output, they may miss the planning issue.  If they are focused on labour utilisation, they may miss the quality loop.  If they are focused on customer pressure, they may miss the supplier dependency creating the pressure upstream.

Knowing the business deeply is valuable. It gives leaders context, history, instinct, and judgement.  But deep familiarity can also make certain problems harder to see.

This is where I believe independent counsel has real value.  Not as a replacement for leadership.  Not as a criticism of the people inside the business. As a disciplined way of seeing the operation with fresh eyes.  The Italians have a useful word here:consigliere. It means ‘Advisor’ or ‘Counsellor’.  In business, I think the idea of a consigliere translates well.  Every organisation benefits from trusted people outside the day-to-day system who can ask better questions, notice patterns, challenge assumptions, and help leadership separate symptoms from root causes.

The natural assumption is that because we know the business best, we should be able to diagnose the business best.

The more complete view is this: Knowing the business best gives you deep operational knowledge. An independent perspective helps reveal what familiarity has made invisible.  Those two things should work together.  This is also why I believe assessment and implementation should be treated as two separate stages.

First, understand what is really happening.  Then decide what, if anything, needs to be fixed.

That distinction matters.  When the same person who diagnoses the problem is also trying to sell the solution, bias can creep in.  Sometimes intentionally.  Often unintentionally.

A cleaner approach is to assess first, independently and objectively.  Only after that should the business decide whether a fix is needed, who should do the work (a decision underpinned by trust), and what kind of intervention makes sense.

Many operational problems were not created by one bad decision. They evolved. They came with growth, new customers, new systems, new product lines, new people, new expectations, and existing processes stretched beyond their original design. In that sense, some problems are inherited almost by osmosis. They come along with the business.

That is why solving them often requires more than effort. It requires perspective. The strongest leaders I have worked with are not the ones who pretend to see everything. They are the ones who care enough about the business to invite the right perspective into the room. They understand that asking for independent counsel is not a sign of weakness. It is a mark of stewardship.

If your business is working hard but the operation is still not delivering the results it should, the starting point may not be another urgent fix. It may be a more objective look at what has become normal.

And sometimes, that begins with a conversation with someone outside the daily cadence of the operation.

About nine months ago, back in mid 2025, I walked into a bespoke tailoring studio as a client, not as a management consultant. I was there because off-the-shelf clothing rarely fits me properly without requiring substantial alterations. But while the owner (let's just call him 'David' for purposes of this story), was taking my measurements, writing down my preferences, and capturing all the garment features and fabrics, I noticed something else.

The studio was beautiful, elegant, refined, and clearly fashioned with taste and care. But the process was not. Every measurement, every preference, every feature, and every detail was being captured by hand in a notebook. For a business offering that level of superior craftsmanship and style, the gap was obvious.

So at the end of our session, I suggested that a digital client management system would do more than modernise the process. It would protect information, create continuity, be more efficient, reduce risk, and make the business easier to scale. Also, using a tablet to capture all the client and garment information would just look more professional than jotting things down in a notebook. Notebooks are prone to being lost, having mugs of coffee knocked over them (been there and done that), being lost or misplaced, and are also subject to other business risks.

David liked the idea, and said he'd actually been considering that recently, but he just did not know where to begin, tech wasn't his thing; high fashion and craftsmanship were. Because I believed in what he had been building over the years, I offered to do a small piece of research for him on a once-off pro bono basis. A limited initial engagement. Enough to help him make an informed decision about how to proceed.

A few weeks later, I came back with a recommendation: Zoho CRM. It suited the business well. Better still, he was already using Zoho Books, so there was a natural fit. He was enthusiastic and decided to move forward with the recommendation. The business tried to move forward internally, but then the implementation stalled for various reasons.

Two weeks ago, David called me back. He could have called anyone, but he called me. That's the part that mattered. There is a lesson in that. Not because I had chased the work. Because when the need became real, he already knew whom he trusted.

That struck a resonant chord with me. It reinforced the principle that not every meaningful engagement begins with some fancy consulting pitch. Sometimes it just begins more simply, with being attentive, being fully present in the circumstance, offering a small piece of pro-bono value, and letting trust build over time.

Of course, that does not mean working for free indefinitely. It means a well-judged act of value appropriate to the circumstances can create the kind of trust that leads to a meaningful commercial engagement later.

I’m now helping the business implement the CRM and, in so doing, taking the business to 'the next level' operationally and strategically. An interaction with myself initially as the client, became a consulting conversation. A once-off pro-bono gesture later became a paid engagement.

Some of the best business development starts quietly, simply starting by noticing! The seed you plant in one conversation could finally have its moment, showing up later as bearing actual fruit! This story is not about the commercial win, it is about looking out for the opportunities to sow seed. Some seed falls on barren ground, and other seed falls on fertile ground. You have to be ready to lose some of the seeds sown in order to realise the multitude of fruit from the seeds that fell on fertile ground. Therein lies the moral and the lesson of this story!

So What Then?

Enter LSS (Lean Six Sigma), a practical, team-based method for improving processes by reducing waste and variation using data and structured problem-solving.  Lean focuses on removing waste and improving flow. Six Sigma focuses on reducing variation and defects. LSS combines both by using a disciplined approach to fix the right problem in the right way.

People and Processes

Not all processes, or people, are created equal. Processes can vary wildly in complexity, from simple workflows to intricate systems intertwined with technology, people, and external factors. Similarly, individuals differ in their wiring: some excel at spotting issues but struggle with root cause analysis, while others thrive in data-driven environments but need guidance on creative problem solving or solution implementation. When a leader defaults to "come up with a solution," they're assuming the person raising the problem has the full toolkit at their disposal to navigate from issue identification through to a viable fix: skills in data collection,  analysis, solution design, and risk assessment. But that's rarely the case in any one individual,  especially in dynamic, cross-functional teams.

Knowing What We are Really Solving For!

At a minimum, effective problem-solving in LSS requires accurately defining the problem, measuring performance with real in-situ data, analysing root causes, validating root causes, crafting improvements through targeted solutions, and then controlling outcomes for long-term stability (sustainability). This is the heart of the DMAIC framework: Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve, Control - a structured roadmap for solving process problems using data. It is a disciplined, data-backed structure that doesn't rely on guesswork or solo heroics. It's a lot to expect from any single employee without support to “come up with the solution”.

A Quick Example

Imagine a customer onboarding process that “feels slow.” A manager asks for a solution. The team suggests “add more staff.” But DMAIC would first define the exact start/end of onboarding, measure cycle time and rework, analyse where delays actually occur (handoffs, approvals, missing info, governance, etc.), improve with targeted fixes (clear inputs, fewer handoffs, standard work), and control the gains (checks, dashboards, ownership). Often, the outcome is faster onboarding with less effort, not more headcount (at greater expense).

The People Dynamics 

LSS recognizes that some people thrive in solo analysis phases, others in collaborative brainstorming, and many benefit from a blend, often incorporating research or pilot testing and leveraging individual skills and experience within a team context.  By advocating "come up with a solution," a leader's expectation hinges on unverified assumptions about the individual's skills, resources, and environment. It ignores development needs, team dynamics, and capabilities, and the coaching role inherent in modern management. Worse, it can lead to quick fixes that mask symptoms rather than addressing root causes, perpetuating 'Muda' (a Lean term for waste and non-value-adding work) and Variability (a major driver of defects and inconsistency). This pressure-to-fix-fast approach risks demotivating teams, eroding confidence, and missing chances to build a culture of continuous improvement, none of which fosters high-performing processes or engaged employees and teams.

World Class Thinking

Instead, embrace LSS as the best-practice antidote for impaired, inefficient, wasteful, unstable, and underperforming processes. It provides the discipline and structure to systematically plug and repair those holes in your business, supported by powerful tools when and where they are needed, for example: 5S (Sort, Set in order, Shine, Standardise, Sustain - a workplace-organisation method); or Value Stream Mapping (VSM) - a way to visualise end-to-end flow and identify delays and waste.

Opportunity Gateways

When an employee flags a process issue, be it bottlenecks, defects, inefficiencies, or any other issue, view it as a gateway to the following opportunities (among others):

While this list isn't exhaustive, it scales with the issue's complexity. LSS isn't about temporarily fixing holes; it's about redesigning the bucket for durability. There’s no need to see Lean Six Sigma as a complex methodology that’s beyond your reach. Instead, view it as a clear, logical approach to problem-solving supported by the DMAIC framework, practical, powerful tools, and guided every step of the way by a knowledgeable LSS expert (whether in-house or external). They’ll lead you and your team through the DMAIC process in an approachable yet stimulating way, empowering everyone involved while delivering meaningful improvements to key business processes.

Leader Perspectives

For leaders and managers, the shift is simple: don’t demand a fully formed solution upfront, sponsor a structured path to crafting a sustainable one. When someone raises a problem, try these three questions before jumping to fixes:

1. What does “good” look like, and how will we measure it?
2. Where exactly in the process is the delay, defect, or rework happening?
3. What is the smallest safe test we can run to learn fast?

Next time you hear "Don't just tell me what the problem is, come up with a solution!", pivot to the wealth of opportunities LSS unlocks: individual learning through tool mastery, team learning via collaboration, leadership learning in project sponsorship, and organisational learning for sustainable process excellence! And importantly, better outcomes: faster flow, fewer defects, lower cost, and a calmer, more capable organisation.