Reliability Leaders Empower Teams: Prioritizing Process Over Quick Fixes

My friend grew up playing football in junior leagues and later refereeing high‑school games. During one early assignment, a ball carrier fumbled right at his feet. Instinctively, after years of training, he leapt to recover the ball, and play resumed. When a player asked, “Hey, ref, can we have the ball back?” the scene froze.

In our rapidly evolving world—more people, more technology, more data—leaders face mounting pressure to solve problems swiftly. That football anecdote mirrors a common organizational mistake: when a problem surfaces, the leader jumps straight into “solution mode” without fully engaging the team or understanding the root cause. The result is often a solution that creates new issues.

Consider a recent executive who presented a slick fix for a plant production issue, only to trigger multiple union grievances once the solution was rolled out. In my work with companies pursuing Reliability Excellence, I’ve identified two consistent pitfalls: a philosophical misunderstanding of the leader’s role, and an over‑reliance on technical fixes.

“Do not solve problems, but work very hard on getting them solved.”

A leader’s most valuable contribution is steering the problem‑solving process, not delivering the final answer. Think of it as ensuring a “B” solution is executed flawlessly by an “A” team. By involving the people who will actually implement the fix, leaders unlock superior execution.

The process should address these key questions:

• Is the problem clearly defined and backed by data? Can we measure the target state?
• Did the team employ 5‑Whys or a similar technique to uncover the root cause, not just the symptom?
• Will the solution prevent the issue from reoccurring?
• Are the team members directly connected to both the problem and the solution?
• When consensus stalls, is it the leader’s responsibility to decide and explain the rationale, enabling a “disagree and commit” culture?

The second common mistake is to focus exclusively on technical details. The true barrier to implementation often lies in politics and emotions—the “soft” side of change. Leaders must involve stakeholders such as operations, maintenance, and unions, ensuring they feel informed rather than blindsided. Changing a process implies that the old way was flawed, which can provoke resistance. The late Michael Hammer summed it up: “The soft stuff is the hard stuff.”

By mastering both the problem‑solving process and the people dynamics, leaders enhance organizational resilience and effectiveness. In essence, keep the ball in play and steer the game; your days of carrying it are over.

About the author:
With more than 20 years of experience in organizational design, change management, and sustainable improvement, Scott Franklin is a respected authority on organizational change. As Senior Vice President at Life Cycle Engineering, he specializes in building learning and strengths‑based cultures that drive execution. Reach him at sfranklin@LCE.com. For more information, visit www.lce.com.