A question of priorities ....

It is not uncommon to find that most HR organizations spend more than 90% of their budget for learning and development in two directions: leadership development and personal development. Yet, if you ask CEOs what functions or people are most crucial to the success of the business, you will hear sales, manufacturing (product development & delivery), and finance, or people within these functions.

Learning and development responsibility for these three functions is often abdicated by HR to the respective function.

To my knowledge, functional heads are not experts in people or organization development but, regardless, they are left to their own devices. Some will find innovative ways to address their needs, but many will do nothing. In my view, this is a dangerous strategy or lack thereof.

I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to assist a newly formed consulting firm based in Bahrain. The issue was sales force development. Many need it but very few do it well. Yet, we continue to hear how important it is to have a well-trained sales organization. Our discussions revealed that sales training seminars per se were not enough, that a much more comprehensive development strategy was needed.

In the sales organization there are several distinct roles with different sets of competencies. To fully develop the whole organization, and not just one part (sales people), a different approach would be needed -- one that permitted to custom design development strategies that would fit individuals' as well as organizational needs. The approach we came up with was:

1. Assess each individual's development needs based on his/her role in the sales organization.

2. Compile an organization-wide composite view of the development needs.

3. Look for similarities and differences between the different roles.

4. Separate the strategy into two components: individual development plans and organization development plans.

5. Develop and implement pilot projects that would address both tracks.

6. Adjust the pilots based on participant and management evaluation.

7. Roll out the projects organization-wide.

8. Follow-up within 60-90 days to determine what worked, what did not and why, and take up any corrective actions.

10. Conduct a new assessment and measure improvements as well as unfinished business.

We then took this approach, coupled with appropriate diagnostic tools and overall learning strategies, to a number of prospective clients, nine to be specific.

The feedback was extremely positive. Several clients indicated that they had struggled for years in search of a comprehensive approach, but, to their chagrin, had not found one. They also all confessed to being inundated with many consultants promoting the merits of their workshops or seminars. In essence, training solutions looking for a problem. Off-the-shelf one size-fits-all approaches, so to speak.

While it is too early to determine how much impact this new approach have, one thing can be said now. HR has to revisit its priorities and better allocate its funds and energy to better address the core needs of the organization. Focusing just on leaders almost exclusively is an incomplete task. Spending money and energy on new age personal development initiatives is akin to polishing the brass when the ship might be taking on water or worst sinking.

Let me have your reactions to this topic. Enjoy the journey along the learning curve. We still have much to learn!

And I thought I was Sicilian ...

In a world characterized by prejudice, it is curious that we choose labels to set ourselves apart from our brothers and sisters. The US Census Bureau has added categories that go beyond the simplistic white, black, brown, yellow and red categories of yesterday. Why? Because as we continue to migrate across the globe, it is quite likely that we will mate with people from other racial and ethnic groups. We also must not overlook the fact that emigration is not new. People have been migrating from the very beginning. Modern transport has shorten the distance -- both in time and mileage.

Take, for example, the small island of Sicily where I was born. History teaches that it was visited by colonizers as early as 3,000 years B.C. One such group, the Sicani, came from the Iberian peninsula around 2,000 years B.C. They colonized primarily the Western part of the island. Another group, the Sikels, soon made its way into Sicily from Southern Italy. They settled primarily on the Eastern side. My hometown of Tusa was where the two groups faced one another across a small river. The Phoenicians are recognized as the founders of Palermo coming from the distant Levant. Soon the Greeks made their way into the island setting up their headquarters in South Eastern Sicily in the city of Syracuse, from where they launched expeditions and established settlements elsewhere in the island. Not to be overlooked, Carthagenians from North Africa (Tunisia) joined the fray. The Romans followed.

And all this happened before the birth of Christ.

Around the 9th century A.D. the Arabs conquered the island and ruled it for over 200 years. They in turn were pushed out by the Normans. King Frederic II from Germany followed and he moved the seat of the Holy Roman Empire to Sicily. It was the time of the Crusades and Sicily was the perfect battleship in the center of the Mediterranean Sea from which to launch missions toward Palestine. After Frederic's reign, the French had a short stay. They were not welcome and to this day Sicilians celebrate their rebellion immortalized in the great opera the Sicilian Vespers by Mascagni. The Spaniards were next, and they stayed for several centuries until the unification of Italy in 1865 when the Italians from the North led by Garibaldi came to liberate the island. In 1943 it was the Americans and Brits who came to wrestle the island from Nazi and Fascist control.

So what is the point of all this? I wanted to set the context for answering an interesting question. Who were my ancestors? I do not look like the typical Sicilian. I do not have dark and curly hair, my skin color is light but olive tinted. Over the years people have asked me if I was from Hungary, Colombia, Spain, Greece, and other more exotic places. So I took matters into my own hands and asked DNA Tribes to examine my DNA. The test results came within two weeks after I sent the samples in. So here we go:

1. The generic profile listed the 15 top markers inherited from my father on one side, and on the other from my mother.

2. The native population match showed the extent to which my markers matched others. A graphic clearly shows that my ancestors were primarily from the Iberian peninsula (Basque being the highest) followed by Spanish. Strong traces of Greek, Romanian, Turkish and Portuguese also were highlighted. To a less degree, traces of Venetian, French, and Israeli Arab were also present.

3. The global population match confirmed the findings above.

4. The high resolution world region profile confirmed my roots as being predominantly Mediterranean, Levantine, Aegean, Mesopotamian, Northwest Europe, and to a lesser degree from Eastern Europe, Arabia and India. A small trace of Finnish also appeared. No Australian, no Asian (other than Indian), no African from below the Sahara, no Native American.

So here you have it. Given the short history of Sicily I gave you at the top of this page, my strong Iberian roots can be traced to the Sicani who colonized the island a couple thousand years B.C., and to a lesser extent to the colonizers from the Aegean Sea and North Africa. I always suspected that on my mother's side many relatives resembled many faces i encountered during my stay in the Middle East.

We use many ethnic labels to set ourselves apart. The reality is that we are most if not all of the above. It has been said that there is much richness that comes from variety. I agree. In particular, I have always found myself at ease in the Iberian peninsula and the Middle East. I find the food in both areas superb and the culture fascinating. Most of all, I love people in general, regardless from where they might be coming.

In a world of conflict and tit for tat, we need to remind ourselves that what we might have in common, by far exceeds what might separate us.

What is your ancestry? Are you curious about it? Find out! Children will take a big lesson from this discovery.

Have fun in the journey along the learning curve.

Change, change, change everywhere

I have not posted a blog in several months. Too busy with travel, too distracted by the chaotic world in which we live. I have been watching with wonder the historic events of the past several months, I confess to having been engrossed in them, searching for meaning, and hoping for the best.

The amount and degree of change world-wide has been and continues to dominate the news, with the hope for a better future. I am specifically keen on commenting on the strategies of change in play and the theory behind them. I recall being exposed to these theories in the early 1970's. An interesting article by the well-known publisher University Associates was a great help in explaining the different kinds of strategies and their strengths and weaknesses. Let me see if I can elaborate.

The theory teaches us that there are basically three major types. Each has been named for a group that typically, but not exclusively, might use it. Each strategy follows a set of assumptions behind the decision to use it, the needs the strategy meets for its users, and of course, its strengths and weaknesses.

Let's start with the first group. This group includes strategies that are best classified as based in power and force. The strategies that fall into this group are: the Political, the Economic, the Military, and the Confrontation change strategies.

POLITICAL STRATEGY -- assumes that if you find and understand the power structure of those who are perceived to have influence over decision making, then the desired action will be achieved. The need here is for control and attention. The strength is that it is effective at getting decisions implemented. The problem is that people relying on this strategy find it difficult to maintain credibility if they experience a failure, and subject themselves to backlash from others with opposing views.

ECONOMIC STRATEGY -- assumes that change can be accomplished by acquiring or obtaining control over all forms of materials goods. An important ingredient is to include those who possess control of the resources. The strength is that as long as the resources are available the strategy is effective in getting decisions implemented. The problem, on the other hand is, that resources are not unlimited.

MILITARY STRATEGY -- assumes that change in behavior can be effected through the use of physical force. A critical component is the development of conditioning, agility, and knowledge of use of methods to enforce change. The strength is effective at keeping order. The weakness comes from the fact that coercion must be costantly maintained because relaxing of control will result in the change not being sustained. Also force tends to be met with force.

CONFRONTATION STRATEGY -- assumes that the use of nonviolent argument will force people to look at problems resulting in the desired change being made. To succeed, people must be able to deal with and use conflict. This strategy helps people release tension, vent anger, or argue for moral values. The strategy is good at getting people to look at issues they would rather avoid. The problem, on the other hand, is that it offers no solution, that those who use it typically lack the power, and also that the strategy creates a backlash.

The second group can be classified as rational-empirical. This approach to change assumes that people are guided by reason and will use rational problem-solving processes, including observation and collection of data, in determining change strategies.

ENGINEERING STRATEGY -- assumes that by changing the context e.g., physical layout, regulated or permitted interaction patterns and role descriptions that change will result in achieving the desired changes. This approach relies on technical skills and structural intervention. The strength is that top managers who have power to influence system-wide changes in structure can be effective on implementing changes. The problem is that people are not just tools and interchangeable resources. This approach can create major resistance to change and therefore decrease the probability of success.

The final group can be classified as normative-reeducative. The strategies used are based on the rationale that, by nature, people exhibit goal-seeking behavior. It also assumes that learning takes place as a result of the interaction process that occurs as people attempt to reach their goals while confronting the demands and resources of the environment.

ACADEMIC STRATEGY -- assumes that since people are rational, if you present them with facts, then people will make the necessary changes. People will listen to those who have knowledge about things of concern to them. This strategy meets the need that people have for autonomy. The strength is that it produces information that is made available to those considering change. It is good at pointing out problems. The problem is that since people are not involved in the process of developing a strategy, there is a lack of ownership of the findings from such studies. As a result, this strategy is weak at mobilizing support and it is time consuming.

FELLOWSHIP STRATEGY -- assumes that getting people to know and like one another will facilitate mutual influence and change, Participation in decision making is thus crucial. People have a need to belong, and this strategy meets that need. The strength rests on its commitment to the individual and giving dignity to the individual. It can get things started. However, conflict avoidance and inability to reach decisions contribute to a loss of direction. Lack of direction in turn can lead to less commitment.

BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE STRATEGY -- assumes that problems in today's world are so complex that they require a combination of or multiple approaches to solve them. Involvement can lead to increased commitment to and acceptance of the results. Here we see a need to integrate the emotional and rational parts of man. The strength is that it puts responsibility where knowledge resides. The problem, on the other hand, due to situational orientation and its eclectic nature, makes it difficult to explain and to understand the change.

It is important to note that no one strategy is better than another, Each strategy is based on different assumptions, and each has different strengths and weaknesses. These strategies are rarely used in their pure form. Often they are used in combination in accordance with the situation on hand.

So much for theory ... Now let's go to practice. Take a look at the major changes around us today. Can you link the type of strategy, its strengths and weaknesses? I think I can, and so can you. Let's quickly see the general application:

SYRIA -- change strategy: military crackdown (force) met by rebellion and casualties on both sides.

ITALY -- change strategy: economic and political met by confrontation (strikes, occupation, disobedience). Prime minister an ex-banker. Other ministers technocrats.

EGYPT -- change strategy: confrontation met by police repression, military intervention, finally elections

LYBIA -- change strategy: military crackdown (force) met by rebellion with casualties on both sides, sanctions (economic), transition

AFGHANISTAN -- change strategy: military (force) met by guerilla warfare, terrorism, disengagement to come

USA -- change strategy: political-economic met by sit-ins, occupations, stand-offs

GREECE -- change strategy: economic and political met by mass protests, urban warfare, destruction of property, change in cabinet of government. Prime minister an ex banker. Other ministers technocrats.

I can go on and so can you. Notice that neither of the prime ministers in Italy and Greece were elected by the people. What happened to representative government? Change in both countries was imposed by outsiders, bankers, bureaucrats in Brussels, other countries (Germany and France).

Fascinating subject. A great laboratory for understanding change and change processes. Enjoy the journey.

Leadership and Self-Deception

A book by this title caught my eye ten years ago. The publisher is the Arbinger Institute. It came along with a powerful video detailing a case study from medical archives where established and well known medical practitioners had problems accepting the findings of a junior member. Why? They were stuck in their thinking, trapped inside the box, so to speak. The trap would not let in fresh data and breakthrough findings.

We have seen similar situations elsewhere, during our careers. Self-deception comes in many shades and forms. I am sure that the reader will recall from his own observations many such examples. Here are three that I would like to share:

1. A successul organization, led by a charismatic leader, runs into major profitability obstacles in its operations. The leader, surrounded by his most loyal and trusted underlings, began to explore solutions. One of the key people suggested an approach. Because of the team dynamics, little discussion followed as to the merits or limitations of the suggested remedies. Unquestioned, the solutions became the panacea for solving the profitability issues. When someone ventured contrasting ideas or doubts, he was soundly ridiculed and/or seen as a non-team player. The problem with the solution was that it did not fit all situations and that those responsible for implementing it did not know how. The solution proved unworkable and simplistic. The issues were much larger than anticipated. Yet to this day, the players recall this case as a tremendous success. Self-deception? Indeed!

2. Years ago, I was facilitating a team building session for an executive team composed of 13 members in a remote part of Minnesota, in a resort located near a beautiful lake. The session was engaging and quite interesting. The issue was poor revenue results. Of the 13 players, one was a quite participant, the rest very outspoken and loud. The quite member seemed more intent on listening than talking. He was in charge of product development. His colleagues were critical of the products coming from the development group and they were sure that poorly designed products were the culprits. After listening for two days to finger pointing and shouting, I felt that I was losing control of the group as a facilitator. In desperation, I turned to the quite member of the group and asked him for his view of the problem. In a quite voice, he responded as follows: Hey guys, it looks like the products you are asking me to develop are not the products that customers want. Wow! The rest is history! The finding was way too late to save them.

3. One of my friends and an esteemed consultant had been engaged in a 5-year culture change program in a high tech company. The CEO was keen on imbedding a set of values and culture characteristics that, in his view, would advance the strategy of the company. It was customary to review progress along this journey and congratulate one another about the tremendous progress made in the culture change journey. The CEO was the champion and advocate, and he was a formidable spokesperson. His exuberance created a reality that senior members felt obliged to accept, although quite remote from the facts on the ground. The consultant, my friend, got trapped in defending his approach and the client's views. People who were not supportive were labeled as misfits, old fashioned, command and control types who missed the significance of the intervention. Soon the specter of the "culture police" permeated the organization. Discussion soon was stifled, people began to go through the motions without conviction. The CEO and the consultant, to this day, defend the intervention as very successful. In my view, they are self-deceiving. One proof: once the CEO left the organization, the culture project was terminated and the consultant fired.

I am sure that you can add to the list many examples from your own experience.

The message here is that we all must be vigilant. It is easy to go along so as not to appear contrary. It is easy to construct a reality that we are all comfortable with. It is easy to go places where nobody wants to go in the first place in the name of teamwork. It is easy to not rock the boat and just ride along -- often toward more turbulent waters. It is easy to stick to what we know because what we do not know scares us. It is easy to live in the past or in our imagination because reality might scare us.

There is a great need to dialog inside organizations, free from perceived or imaginary reprisals. Dialog expand our data points and hopefully lead us toward a better, perhaps more informed decision making.

Enjoy the journey along the learning curve! Avoid self-deception -- a big obstacle to a profitable ride.

Brilliance by Design

Last week I had the pleasure of attending the Annual Summit event sponsored by the Ken Blanchard Companies -- purveyors of world class leadership development programs. This conference showcases client companies' application of the Situational Leadership methodology. The venue was the La Costa Resort in Carlsbad, California -- a beautiful Spanish colonial set of buildings nestled in the wooded section of this lovely California town -- approximately 15-20 miles North of San Diego.

During the conference I attended a short workshop led by Vicki Halsey, author of the book "Brilliance by Design". This book is an "how to" book -- on how to create learning experiences that connect, inspire, and engage participants. A must-have skill set for leaders and consultants.

Adult learning is an interesting discipline and one that captured my attention many years ago. In fact, I toyed with the idea of attending the Ph.D. program at Columbia University in the early '80's. Unfortunately, my work schedule did not permit me to do so, but I have never lost the passion for the subject.

Workshop design, in particular, is an important skill for organization development practitioners. Much of what they do involves the use of workshops for data collection, analysis and problem solving. I have attended one too many workshops that were poorly designed and ineffective. Some, I might have been personally responsible for. Not proud of that, though! I have struggled over the years to design workshops that connect, inspire and engage clients. But without solid training, I foundered along.

We were given a complimentary copy of the book. I am reading it as we speak, and I have already found much to learn and apply. I recommend it. It easily written and it is chuck full of examples, tables, questionnaires, and hints. It is published by Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, California. It costs a mere $ 18.95.

Tsunami and Change

I have been transfixed by the television images coming from Japan. After an enormous earthquake, the strongest in the recorded history of Japan, a huge tsunami wave washes away to sea buildings, cars, trees, and people. At last count 8,000 people are dead and another 12,000 are missing. The nuclear reactors near the epicenter did not withstand the tremblor. The cooling chambers were ruptured leaking the protective water surrounding the nuclear cores. Radioactive vapor continues to escape in the atmosphere; concern is high that explosions may occur if attempts to cool down the reactors prove unsuccessful.

The Japanese word tsunami means, I am told, catastrophe. There is no better way to describe the desolation, devastation, and human suffering resulting from this mammoth event. Hopelessness, despair, powerlessness, and broken dreams! All in a short in a matter of minutes.

In a remote small town of Tunisia, a lonely and desperate man immolates himself after an arbitrary confiscation of his vegetable cart. This sets off a spontaneous chain of human tsunamies across the Maghreb and to the Middle East. A subsequent insurresction topples the long standing dictator of Tunisia. Soon after the tsunami spreads to Egypt where valiant freedom fighters stand down Mubarak, their strong man of 30 years. Ripples from the change wave reach Jordan where the King swiftly moves to right some injustices. Turmoil soon after erupts in Bahrain and Yemen. Skirmishes are also reported in the Eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia. Unrest in Lybia quickly follows in the eastern province, and spreading quickly West to other cities.

Most, if not all, of these hot spots are still smoldering, with an uncertain conclusion. One cannot stand by and watch helplessly as these events unfold in front of our eyes. Something powerful and beyond explanation is happening. The human spirit, it seems, is alive and well, yearning to be free, eager to pursue happiness.

It has been reported that there are 100 million people in migration in the world today. Men and women who have left their homes in search of work. A human wave stretching across the globe. A wave larger than most countries' population. About 12 million are currently stranded in North Africa looking for ways to cross the Mediterranean Sea to Europe in search of a better life.

Victor Pinero, a colleague that I met years back in Venezuela and later again in California, wrote a book about a tsunami type of change he saw happen in his native island of Curacao. His book went by unnoticed. He re-issued his updated book following the tsunami disaster in South East Asia a few years ago. Victor tried to bring to light the consequences of large scale change inside our organizations. Again, his book went mostly unnoticed.

During my long career, I have seen several organizational tsunami. They are all different, of course, but they also have something in common: a catastrophic event that shakes the organization off its foundations. Some organizations survive, but they are for ever changed. The catastrophic event might be the firing of a charismatic leader, the loss of a major source of revenue, the quick advent of a replacement technology, or an ill-conceived merger. As a result, careers are swept away, prospects destroyed, fortunes lost, and dreams shattered. Human suffering follows for years to come. The wounds might heal but the scars will remain.

I am reminded that we live in a world of uncertainty, a world full of unknowns, a world with hidden tsunamis -- some manageable, others beyond our scope. Although we long for predicability and safety, we are destined to live on shaky ground.

Hemingway said that "life breaks you but makes you stronger in the broken parts". As I reflect on these events, I pray that this is the case for our brothers and sisters in Japan. I pray that this is also the case for our brothers across the Maghreb and the Middle East.

Job Design -- A Lost Science?

In my last blog regarding employee engagement, I introduced the notion that an important (but not the only one) factor to consider is effective job design. One of my blog followers wrote to ask that I say a bit more about this topic.

Job design know-how is an important part of the HR professional toolkit. Without it, it is difficult to understand, let alone to do, organization design. Sadly, most HR professionals do not have the working knowledge and expertise required to carry out these two critical functional assignments -- the hard side of HR. I do not recall seeing either course in most HR curricula that I have perused in the past 10 years. What seems to be in vogue nowdays is the softer side of HR.

My view has been for sometime that it is sheer folly to rely on just one side of the HR equation (hard or soft). Effective HR management work requires knowledge and experience in both sides. The lack of the hard side will break us while the emphasis on the soft side will make us more successful. Two sides of the same coin. One is not better than the other, they are both essential.

Back to job design. Its roots go back to the industrial revolution and the industrial engineers who pionered it. It all started with job analysis -- the study of the time and motions needed to complete an industrial task. The engineers' orientation was to find ways to fit unskilled people to the requirements of emerging mass production. Right just before and after the WWII, industrial psychologists got involved in a series of experiments designed to humanize the workplace. Assembly line work, while generating the desired efficiencies, took a huge toll on people's motivation, organizational attachment, and job satisfaction. These experiments gave rise to a new approach that tried to balance the technical needs of a job with the human side of the provider, more elegantly named the socio-technical approach.

Taking the mystique away, job design is a decision making process that tries to balance, on one side, the job designer's CHOICES in work design with, on the other side, CONSIDERATIONS for people. What are the choices? They are the tasks, activities, functions included in a person's job vis-a-vis the aspirations, skill set, and orientation (considerations). The designer can based on this analysis enrich a job by increasting its variety or enlarge a job based on individual needs and capabilities. This approach has taken hold in the more recent times whenever technology permits it. It is quite difficult to customize jobs in mass production or automated functions, but rather feasible in service or high tech industries for example.

Now, let me dispel some faulty assumptions. Job descriptions are not to be confused with job design. They are an expression of how management sees a particular job. The same can be said for position descriptions or role descriptions. Their uses are also different. Job descriptions are useful for salary survey work, by enabling us to calculate job worth in monetary terms. Role descriptions are useful for clarifying responsibilities, accountabilities, and authority. Position descriptions are functional descriptions of specific jobs in a job family. Job analysis tries to map out how people spend their time, how important what people do might be in the scheme of things, and the relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform them. It is a great tool for activity pricing and for eliminating wasteful efforts. Job analysis is also essential to solid needs assessment.

Increased employee engagement depends on the fit between the person and the job. Experts in employee engagement warn us that engagement is not the same thing as satisfaction, and I agree. But I posit that job satisfaction is a pre-condition. We all know that happy cows do not yield more or better milk. But we know, on the other hand, that unhappy cows will gore you, run away (turnover), or quit cooperating.

Research on employee retention suggests that people stay because they like the work they do and the context in which they do it (company, industry, location, etc.) Employees leave, on the other hand, principally because they have better opportunities, do not like their supervisor, find company policies wnating, or are dissatisfied with the work climate or work location. Two totally different sets of reasons!

In todays's world employees expect involvement and participation in those decisions that affect their job or livelihood. Management on the other hand expects compliance and flexibility. I believe that this is a fair exchange. Don't you?

A big subject to address in a short blog. I hope that I have contributed to the discussion.

Employee Engagement

Last month I visited Brazil for the second time the past year. I met with four different consulting firms on behalf of a company on whose board I serve. One of the recurring themes during my visit was employee engagement. It is a hot topic and many world class consultancies such as Hewitt, Hay, Gallup, and my old alma mater Louis Allen Worldwide are scrambling to respond to this market interest.

It is my view that fostering employee engagement is the core work of HR functions. In today's fragile economy, competitive advantage is elusive since other firms can pretty much copy your products and emulate your service offerings. However, no one can really copy how your employees feel about your company. Research has shown that organizations with better employee engagement perform better on a number of critical measures, e.g., profitability, customer retention, etc. Engagement means going the extra mile to achieve company goals. It is the extra that affects the competitive advantage.

Research on employee engagement suggests that what drives it varies from company to company, so there are no universal remedies or across the board solutions. What drives it in your organization might be very different than what drives it elsewhere.

We have made many advances in measuring and analyzing employee engagement, but we are in the primitive stages when it comes to targeted interventions. Consultancies seem to know less about how to improve it than they know about measuring it.

The source of implementation wisdom comes from the day to day experience and know-how in job design, carefully architected reward systems, effective leadership practices, and human resources policies and programs. HR departments need to step up and lead with properly configured strategies and programs. You cannot improve employee engagement with training programs, communication blitzes, or focus groups. Sure, these might help but they alone will not sustain change and improvement. It is not the job of consultants to do this. Most consultants lack the knowledge in the fundamentals of human resources management. It is not their mantra. Most make money by being good diagnosticians, not treatment specialists.

Treating the intervening variables may give the illusion of progress, but addressing the causal variables is where the honey is, so to speak. The former is akin to treating the symptoms. Unfortunately, this is where most effort goes in, in my view.

What are your ideas and successes in this area? Are you willing to exchange them? Enjoy the journey along the learning curve.