Explanation of how Tom Completed the Process

Tom takes the first probable cause statement and asks, “If greater responsibility could be a hassle, thus causing their rejection of the promotion, does this explain why the telemarketers are refusing promotions (‘is’ fact) and there is no problem that is apparent with the telemarketers’ job (‘is not’ fact)?” If Tom considers only this first set of facts, then his answer must be “yes”. So, he puts a "" mark in the first box under No. 1, as shown on the chart.

Using this same probable cause statement, Tom tests it against each of the other five sets of “is/is not” facts and records his answers in column No. 1 of the chart. Because this probable cause statement makes sense and therefore is answered “yes” in all six sets of facts, he records a “” in each of the boxes in column No. 1.

If a specific probable cause statement does not check out against a specific set of facts, he records an “A” – which stands for “assumption”. In other words, he assumes that something else must account for that set of “is/is not” facts. For instance, the second probable cause statement (longer hours) does not check out with set of facts No. 2. For Sue had said she would like a promotion to head up the telemarketing group. In other words, it does not make sense that people are refusing promotion to outside salesperson and not a promotion within the telemarketing department because both would require working extra hours. Likewise, in set of facts No. 3, promotions would usually require longer hours throughout the organisation, not just in the telemarketing department. Nor does this probable cause check out with set of facts No. 4 – the problem is occurring now but was not present prior to two years ago – because outside sales have always involved longer hours than telemarketing.

Tom checks out each probable cause against each set of “is/is not” facts, recording “” when the cause statement checks out and an “A” when it does not.
(If you do not have enough information to know whether one of your statements accounts for a set of facts, use a “?” to indicate this.)

After Tom checked all cause statements against all six of his sets of “is/is not” facts, only one cause appeared to account for every set of facts concerning the problem: “Closer relationships with peers because of the team training programmes."

Tom’s last step 7 is verification of the most probable cause statement. Until he verifies that closer relationships resulting from the telemarketers' pilot team training is the key reason for their rejection of the promotion offer, he cannot say that “closer relationships” is the cause, only the most probable cause.

Tom’s probable cause grid analysis has not yet eliminated any causes, but rather tells him which cause to try to verify first, that is, “Closer relationships due to team training”. If he cannot verify this as being the cause of the problem, he will then attempt to verify the next most probable cause or causes; in this case, “Loss of established customers" and “Tougher supervisor”.

This problem-solving approach is based on recognising that a problem situation involves effects, which, upon analysis, indicate a most probable cause. The effects point to a very particular kind of cause – one that would produce just the unique effects (problem) that have been observed.

As we have seen, the cause of any problem leaves a tell-tale imprint of clues (effects) that can be investigated along four lines. The first is identifying. In the “Case of the Rejected Promotion”, the problem’s “identity” was the telemarketers’ refusal of a promotion to an outside sales position. The second clue is location. The problem occurred in the telemarketing department and not in other departments. The third clue is timing. The problem occurring now was not present prior to two years ago, and the fourth line of investigation is the extent of the problem – its size and severity. In the case above, with two people rejecting promotion to outside sales and no other applicants for the job, the problem is serious and needs attention. But because this problem was carefully analysed, probable causes were identified for verification and any action will be directed to a verified cause.

One final point: Problems that fit the criteria of a real problem (deviation from the standard, unknown cause, you are concerned about it) do not stay problems for long. You will normally be motivated to find the cause and fix the problem. But, when you identify a list of existing problems, you will often find that your list includes several old problems. And these old problems frequently have known causes but have not been solved simply because you have not made decisions about them. These are not true “problems” at all. They are situations requiring decisions, not problem-solving.