Vicious Cycle
“How does this guy manage to create more tasks than he completes?!”
I once had a direct report who was “net negative” when it came to productivity. Although very smart, he was largely oblivious to the nuances of communication.
When a customer would ask for something, he was unable to see how their request fit in the broader picture. He couldn’t intuit what the customer “really” wanted to know. As a result, he would dutifully respond to the specific request without providing any context or influencing in any way, invariably provoking more customer questions that had to be followed up on.
It was a vicious cycle - at the end of each day, his list of customer questions and requests was longer than it had been the previous day.
As a manager you may have observed a similar behavior pattern in one of your direct reports. You can provide training, coaching, and real-time feedback to try to drive improvement. In my experience, such interventions either quickly “turn on the switch” and the person catches on, or no matter what you do the person doesn’t ever improve to any significant degree.
I believe that the ability to empathize (in this case, to see the world from the customer’s point of view and to act accordingly) is an inherent personality trait established at a young age. In the case of my employee, no matter how many times or different ways I tried to help him see the broader implications of a given request, he fell back on the literal response to the specific question. In the end, he was simply not a good fit for a customer-facing role.

Over the years we’ve been exposed to Six Sigma, Juran, Deming PDCA, 8D, Dale Carnegie, A3, Shainin, and more. Each technique works pretty well, and has been demonstrated many times in a wide variety of industries and circumstances. At the core they are all essentially the same!
Each approach relies on an underlying logical flow that goes like this: [a] make sure the problem is clearly defined; [b] be open to all sources of information; [c] vet the information for relevance and accuracy; [d] use the process of elimination to narrow down all possible causes to the most likely few; [e] prove which of the suspects is really the cause of the issue; [f] generate a number of potential solutions; [g] evaluate the effectiveness, feasibility and risk of the potential solutions; [h] implement the winning solution(s); and [i] take steps to make sure your solution(s) don’t unravel in the future.
The differences between the paradigms resides in supplementary steps and toolkits. For example, 8D contains the important “In

Your primary role as a manager is to ensure your team’s success. Internalize this. Make sure your team members know this. Build an environment of trust and collaboration. A direct report of mine would frequently leave me out of the loop as problems escalated, preferring instead to “work harder”. It was clear that he felt uncomfortable delivering bad news to me (his boss) when things were not going according to plan. Let me tell you the rest of the story.

I was struggling to get updates from my regional project management directors. Sensing my frustration at having to constantly repeat my (apparently futile) requests to the team to provide their updates consistently, my boss suggested, “If you want something done, schedule it.” He meant that if updates are needed at a specific time, actually schedule them directly on people's calendars, making the expectation and reminder "automatic" each month, and emphasizing the importance of the updates by turning them into meetings – people tend not to show up empty handed to meetings where they're expected to present. Scheduling removed a bit of "friction" and created a sense of urgency that resulted in real progress. Amazingly, they didn’t miss any updates after that point!

One of the best bits of advice I received when I first became a manager was to “delegate a task when your team member is 70% as good at it as you are, not 99%.” Many times, people are promoted to management positions because of their strong performance as individual contributors, but then they’re shocked to learn that a whole separate set of skills is required to succeed in their new role. Delegation is high on this list of new skills. Delegation means handing off tasks for someone else to do them. A common mistake is to only hand off a task when the team member is as good as you are at it. This is a trap! While it may seem like a good idea to protect the quality of the task, it doesn’t work in practice.

Don’t be fooled by the latest fad in project management, Agile. Agile is pitched as a revolutionary method, but the fact is, it simply DOES NOT GET THE RESULTS that visual waterfall approaches do. Period.
We see team after team fail using Agile methods, for very specific reasons. Let’s look at the 6 painful TRUTHs of using Agile methods. You don't need the latest fad, you need to use the best practices to manage a project to completion.

Problem-solving methods haven’t changed in over 20 years, and some methods have been around for 30-50 years without significant improvement. CAEDENCE has released a novel improvement to problem-solving that overcomes shortfalls in existing methods.
Applicable to all structured problem-solving approaches, Visual 8D™ enables teams to execute the familiar problem-solving steps (with no additional effort), while capturing plans and progress in easy-to-follow diagrams. Visual 8D™ puts teams in the position of providing answers to management and customer questions before being asked, resulting in improved control of the situation and minimizing time wasted on extraneous actions.

Being action-oriented is a good thing, right? Well, yes and no. There's a big difference between learning and adjusting quickly ("failing fast") and wasting time and resources by "rushing off half cocked".
Executives and teams alike are eager to be (and be seen) "doing something", but they often fail to recognize the distinction between 'activity' and 'progress'. As a result, they act upon the first reasonable idea that comes along. The trouble with acting on the first reasonable idea is twofold. First, there might have been much better ideas, and second, once you start working on the first idea, you stop looking for the better ones. Outcomes are often sub-optimal – problems not solved, product not launched, etc.
Want to dramatically improve your team's odds of achieving consistently strong outcomes? Next time everyone's ready to run with the first reasonable idea, set aside just 30 minutes and challenge the group with this 3-step process.