Failing Forward Step Two: Determine Causality

In a continuation of a series on learning from failure (start from the beginning), the second step is to determine the underlying reason or reasons for the loss. This means going through the long list of events assembled in Step One and determining which actually caused the loss. Determining causality is not the same as conducting root-cause analysis.The distinction is subtle but important. Root-cause analysis gets to the core of why a specific event turned out differently than desired. But that particular event, however unfortunate, might be unrelated to the loss. Confusing correlation and causation is a common error made by sales teams after both wins and losses. Interestingly, it is also made when studying successes in general. Jerker Denrell highlights the pitfalls of perceiving causation where it does not exist through an absurd example involving successful executives:

All successful executives have one thing in common: They all brush their teeth. Of course, so do unsuccessful executives. So, tooth-brushing does not necessarily result in success. In the sales environment, it is easy to assume that the team won because of a high-value solution to an identified problem was presented. Yet, the team might have actually overcomplicated the problem and won in spite of the solution and not because of it.

It is even easier to jump to these types of conclusions after a loss. How can teams determine causality? First, do the work required to get through Step One and do not stop until it is done thoroughly. Second, get a formal debrief from the customer and put that debrief in context. Most teams that do not do the analytical homework described in Step One rely disproportionately on the customer debrief.

Information provided at a debrief might explain or lead to an explanation of the underlying reason for the loss, but it might not. Debriefs are inherently contentious events. Both sides enter the discussion with apprehension. Some sales professionals are tempted to defend their proposal; some argue with the customer. Very few people, including mature professionals, take criticism well.

Even if everyone involved remains calm, it is not always easy to get to the underlying reasons. Sometimes, the evaluation of the solution appears to be based on generalities rather than specifics. And customers are subject to the same psychological biases that affect sales teams.

Sometimes different customer opinions have to be reconciled, and the final decision might not reflect the range of views on the deal. At the same time, customer debriefs often reveal legitimate shortcomings of the sales process or the solution. Nonetheless, even if all debriefing material can be taken at face value, it has to be carefully weighed.

Ultimately, the information from the debrief has to be weighed fairly and rigorously against all other data points collected during the post-loss analysis. It is a set of data points. It can neither be entirely ignored nor taken entirely at face value.

Determinations of causality will always be partially subjective. Yet, thorough documentation and careful analysis by individuals with both experience and good judgment can reduce the degree of subjectivity. Once the team has determined the cause of the loss, it is equally important to assess other perceived failures, errors, miscalculations or problems with the process. Just because those events did not lead to a loss this time does not mean that they do not merit attention. They might cause a loss the next time.

In assessing these other events, it is important to get different perspectives. Was the event a function of unique circumstances, or did it reveal a systemic weakness? The author and journalist Alan Beattie recalled a biologist telling him that all biologists could be categorized as either “lumpers” or “splitters.” Lumpers tend to group things together and develop rules to explain that group; splitters see each event as unique and in a specific context. In a post-loss analysis, both perspectives are needed. Some events are flukes. Others are part of a pattern.

Conversely, there are instances when a loss is not the result of a failure or mistake. This is a critical determination because, if this circumstance is not correctly identified, teams might try to fix what is not really broken, and they might discard valuable processes and techniques. Many sales professionals instinctively assume that there is always a way to win in any situation. But this is not always true. No team has perfect knowledge and uncontrollable events do occur.

Stay tuned for the next installment!

Past posts:

Learn from your mistakes

Step One – Find out what happened

Keep up-to-date with Fast Track Tools by subscribing to our blog, via Twitter @fasttracktools and join our Facebook community!

photo by Katrina Snaps