The Case of Rejected Promotion

Click here to view a video on the case of the rejected promotion.

Practical Example of how Tom handles The Case of Rejected Promotion

So, Tom’s first job is to get paper and pencil and write out a problem statement. He writes:

Step 1

“Two telemarketers have turned down a promotion to outside salesperson.”

Step 2

He lists what the problem is; followed by where, when and to what extent it is occurring, as follows:

After Tom has written down what the problem is, and where, when and to what extent the problem IS occurring, he next describes the what, where, when and extent to which the problem IS NOT occurring.

Step 3

Tom determines the difference between the situation in which the problem is occurring and where it does not exist. That is, what factors relate to the problem situations that are not present where there is not this problem? Thus, Tom notes the factors in the “Difference” column.

Note that the “Difference” column may and often will, be left blank in some of the rows (the Extent rows in this example). Also note that in solving real problems, there may be many differences between what the problem is and what it is not. Only list those factors (differences) that have a direct bearing on the problem. For example, a key difference between the “telemarketers refusing promotions” and “telemarketers’ (present) job” is that the promotion involves an increase in salary. But it does not make sense that someone would turn down a promotion to a new job because it pays more. Thus, even though “money” is a major difference between these two positions, it is not listed in the “Difference” column because it is not likely to be a cause of the telemarketers’ refusing a promotion to outside sales.

In addition, note that the difference, “Betty, the boss,” could have been written twice: once as shown adjacent to the set of “is” and “is not” facts, “Promotion to outside salesperson” and “Promotion within telemarketing department” and once as the first set of “What” is and is not facts, “telemarketers refusing promotion” and “employees in other departments refusing promotions”. Once you have “captured” a major difference on the grid, it is not necessary to rewrite it in other rows.

Step 4

Look carefully for changes that have taken place or would take place that might affect the thinking of the telemarketers concerning the promotion. So, Tom wrote in the changes in column four.

After Tom identifies situational differences and critical changes, he is now ready for Step 5: to create probable causes of the problem (called ‘probable cause statements’) related to each of the change factors. For example, in the illustration above, “longer hours”, is one of the changes involved in the promotion. Thus, Tom would write a probable cause statement that relates this new change factor to his initial problem statement, as follows:

Because a promotion to outside salesperson entails longer hours, two telemarketers turned down the promotion.

Note here that Tom cannot say with certainty at this point, “Eureka, I have found the cause!” What he has identified is a probable cause – not a verified one. In fact, Tom finally identified five probable causes of the problem (one statement for each of the changes). He then constructs a chart in which he:

1. Writes down each of the selected change factors;
2. Relates each change to the problem (rejected promotion) using a common-sense link.

Thus, he writes:

Step 5

Step 6

Tom numbers his six pairs of “is/is not” facts concerning the what, where, when and extent of the problem and prepares to test his probable cause statements against these known sets of facts.

Step 7

Then on the right-hand side of his Probable Cause Statements chart, he adds six narrow columns corresponding to the six sets of is/is not facts. This makes a grid on which he can test each probable cause against the known facts, by answering the question.

Does this probable cause statement account for the “is/is not” facts concerning the WHAT/WHERE/WHEN and EXTENT of the problem?