Tag Archives: five whys

Questions Are More Powerful Than We Think

Questions Are More Powerful Than We Think

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

When I was 27, I moved to Warsaw, Poland to work in the nascent media industry that was developing there. I had experience working in media in New York, so I was excited to share what I’d learned and was confident that my knowledge and expertise would be well received.

It wasn’t. Whenever I began to explain how a media business was supposed to work, people would ask me, “why?” That forced me to think about it and, when I did, I began to realize that many of the principles I had taken for granted were merely conventions. Things didn’t need to work that way and could be done differently.

That’s when I first learned the power of a question. As Warren Berger explains in A More Beautiful Question, while answers tend to close a discussion, questions help us open new doors and can lead to genuine breakthroughs. Yet not all questions are equal. Asking good questions is a skill that takes practice and effort to learn to do well. Here’s where to start.

Why?

When we are young, we ask lots of “why?” questions. Why is the sky blue? Why can’t we fly like birds? Why do I have to go to bed at a certain time? It is through asking why that we learn basic things about the world. Yet as we get older, we tend to think we know things and stop questioning fundamental assumptions.

That’s where I was when I first arrived in Poland. I had gone through extensive training and knew things. I was proud of the knowledge that I had gained and didn’t question whether those things were necessarily true. My new Polish colleagues, on the other hand, were emerging from 50 years of communism and so were unencumbered with that illusion of knowledge.

In researching my book, Mapping Innovation, I spoke to dozens of world class innovators, and I was amazed how often breakthroughs started with a “Why?” question. For example, Jim Allison, a prominent immunologist who had lost family members to cancer, asked himself why our immune system doesn’t attack tumors.

“Why?” questions can be frustrating, because there are rarely easy answers to them, and they almost always lead to more questions. There’s even a technique called the 5 Whys that is designed to uncover root problems. Nevertheless, if you want to get beyond fundamental assumptions, you need to start with asking “why?”

What If?

While asking “why?” can help alert us to new opportunities, asking “What if” can lead us into new directions and open new doors. Einstein was famous for these types of thought experiments. Asking “What if I would ride on a bolt of lightning?” led to his theory of special relativity and asking, “What if I was riding on an elevator in space?” led to general relativity.

Often, we can use “What if?” questions to propose answers to our “Why?” questions. For example, after Jim Allison asked himself why our immune system doesn’t attack tumors, he followed it up by asking, “what if our immune system actually does attack tumors, but shuts off too soon?”

That took him in a completely new direction. He began to experiment with regulating the immune response and achieved amazing results. Eventually, he would win the Nobel Prize for his role in establishing the new field of cancer immunotherapy. It all started because he was able to imagine new possibilities with a “What if?” question.

Another way we can use “What If? questions is to remove or add constraints. For example, we can ask ourselves, “What if we didn’t have to worry about costs?” or “What if we could only charge our customers half of what we’re charging now?” Asking “What if? Questions can often alert us to possibilities what we weren’t aware of.

How?

Asking “Why?” and “What if? questions can open up new opportunities, eventually we need to answer the “How?” question. “How?” questions can be especially difficult because answering them often involves knowledge, resources and capabilities that we do not possess. That’s what makes “How?” questions fundamentally more collaborative.

For example, as a research executive at Eli Lilly, Alph Bingham became interested in why some chemistry problems never got solved. One observation he made was that when he was in graduate school, if there were 20 people in a class, they would often come up with 20 different approaches to a problem, but in industry scientists generally worked alone.

Long an admirer of Linux, he was fascinated with the way thousands of volunteers were able to create and advance complex software that could compete with the best proprietary products. So he began to think “What if we could do something like Linux, but with a bounty?” He thought that if he got more people working on the “How?” question, he might be able to solve more problems.

The fruit of his efforts, called Innocentive went live in June 2001 with 21 problems, many of which the company had been working on for years. Although the bounties were small in the context of the pharmaceutical industry — $20,000 to $25,000 — by the end of the year a third of them were solved. It was an astounding success.

It soon became clear that more challenges on the site would attract more solvers, so they started recruiting other companies to the platform. When results improved, they even began inviting competitors to post challenges as well. Today, Innocentive has over 100,000 solvers that work out hundreds of problems so tough that even the smartest companies can’t crack them.

Building A Culture Of Inquiry

When I first arrived in Poland, I was prepared to give all the answers, because that’s what I was trained for. The media business in New York had been around for a long time and everything was supposedly worked out. Follow the model, I was told, and you’ll be successful. That’s why the questions my new colleagues posed took me by surprise.

Yet once I started asking questions myself, I began to see opportunities everywhere. As I travelled and worked in different countries, I found that everywhere I went, people ran nearly identical businesses in completely different ways and most were convinced that their way was the “right” way. Most saw little utility in questioning how things were done.

That’s why most people can’t innovate. In fact, while researching Mapping Innovation, I found that the best innovators were not the ones who were the smartest or even the ones who worked the hardest, but those who continually looked for new problems to solve. They were always asking new questions, that’s how they found new things.

The truth is that to drive innovation, we need to build a culture of inquiry. We need to ask “why” things are done the way they are done, “what if” we took a different path and “how” things can be done differently. If you don’t explore, you won’t discover and if you don’t discover, you won’t invent. Once you stop inventing, you will be disrupted.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

The Five Whys of Organizational Structure

Re-Designing the Operating Model

LAST UPDATED: November 12, 2025 at 12:36PM

The Five Whys of Organizational Structure

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

Leaders often embark on organizational restructuring with good intentions, aiming for agility or efficiency. Yet, most reorganizations fail not because the new chart is wrong, but because they confuse the structure (the boxes and lines on the chart) with the operating model (the mechanism by which value is created and flows through the organization). They end up playing musical chairs with reporting lines, only to find the same dysfunctions resurface within six months because, as the saying goes, structure always eats strategy for breakfast.

To implement true, sustainable change, we must apply a human-centered design approach to the organization itself. We must stop asking “What is the best structure?” and start asking “Why does our current structure fail to deliver customer value?” This requires the rigorous diagnostic tool of the Five Whys of Organizational Structure.

This process moves beyond superficial complaints and identifies the root cause of systemic friction, revealing whether the true problem is structure, process, metrics, or talent.

The Five Whys Diagnostic for Organizational Structure

The Five Whys approach, adapted from quality management, forces a deep dive into organizational friction points. Start with a symptom (e.g., “Product launches are slow”) and keep asking “Why?” until you reach the systemic cause.

Symptom: Product launches are slow.

  • Why 1: Why are product launches slow?Answer: Decisions on feature prioritization require sign-off from three different VP-level silos (Marketing, Engineering, Sales).
  • Why 2: Why do three VPs need to sign off?Answer: Because each VP controls a separate, competing budget and their compensation metrics are siloed (e.g., Sales gets paid on volume, Engineering on uptime, Marketing on lead generation). No one is measured on time-to-market.
  • Why 3: Why are their budgets and metrics siloed?Answer: Because the underlying financial reporting structure treats these functions as distinct cost centers, reinforcing the idea that they are running competing businesses rather than collaborative value streams.
  • Why 4: Why does the financial reporting structure reinforce competing cost centers?Answer: Because the entire Operating Model is designed for cost optimization and risk aversion, reflecting the stable, high-margin market we existed in 20 years ago, not the fast-paced, low-margin, high-innovation market of today.
  • Why 5: Why is the Operating Model still based on outdated assumptions?Answer: Because the executive team has never aligned on the **value streams** necessary to win today, and instead defers to the historical hierarchy to avoid conflict. The root cause is a failure of executive alignment and strategic imagination, not the org chart itself.

The Three Levers of Operating Model Design

Once the Five Whys reveal the systemic cause, the Human-Centered Change leader must pull the right lever. Re-designing the Operating Model means adjusting three interconnected elements—none of which is the org chart alone:

1. Value Stream Mapping (The Flow)

This replaces the traditional functional view with a flow view. Instead of organizing around departments (Marketing, IT, Operations), organization must happen around the customer’s journey and the **Value Stream** that delivers it (e.g., “Customer Acquisition,” “New Product Development,” “Service Resolution”). The structure is built around the work and the customer, not the people.

2. Metrics and Incentives (The Gravity)

As seen in the diagnostic, siloed metrics are the gravity that pulls teams apart. The new structure must be supported by shared, end-to-end metrics that measure the success of the Value Stream, not the individual function. If an IT team is measured on uptime, but the product team is measured on speed-to-market, the teams will always conflict. Aligning incentives is the force that pulls the organization together.

3. Decision Rights (The Speed)

The new model must explicitly define who has the authority to decide. Most friction comes from ambiguity, with decisions perpetually escalating upward. Adopting a decentralized model means pushing decision-making authority—and the associated accountability—down to the teams that have the most direct customer knowledge. This shifts the executive role from approver to architect of the system and monitor of guardrails, significantly boosting organizational speed.

Case Study 1: The Banking Giant and the Value Stream Shift

Challenge: Slow Digital Onboarding

A major international bank suffered from a glacial pace in launching new digital banking features. The Five Whys revealed that the root cause was the structural handoff: moving a new feature from Digital Banking (measured on UX) to IT (measured on stability) to Compliance (measured on risk avoidance). The customer suffered through slow, fragmented releases.

Operating Model Intervention:

The bank moved from a functional structure to a Value Stream Model. They created permanent, cross-functional “Customer Onboarding Pods,” each containing members from Digital Banking, IT, and Compliance. The pods were measured on one metric: time-to-launch for new features and reduction in customer abandonment rate. The executive leadership formally delegated the majority of compliance sign-offs to the senior Compliance member within the pod. This shift from sequential handoffs to parallel collaboration reduced the average time-to-market for simple features from eight weeks to two weeks, proving the power of aligning structure around the customer’s journey.

Case Study 2: The Manufacturing Firm and the Decentralized Decision Rights

Challenge: Centralized Command Crippling Local Innovation

A diversified global manufacturer experienced lagging innovation outside its headquarters. Every request for investment in local market-specific product modifications (e.g., smaller packaging for an emerging market) had to be approved by a centralized, U.S.-based committee. The Five Whys revealed that the central committee’s reluctance stemmed from a 20-year-old policy of standardizing inventory to reduce risk, even if it sacrificed growth opportunities.

Operating Model Intervention:

The firm did not eliminate the central committee, but they radically redefined its Decision Rights. The new model delegated 80% of all investment decisions under $500,000 to regional General Managers (GMs), provided the GMs adhered to three non-negotiable Guardrails (e.g., a minimum return on investment threshold, a maximum safety risk score, and a maximum working capital usage). The central committee’s role shifted from saying “yes” or “no” to designing and monitoring the guardrails. This empowered local GMs, leading to a 30% increase in locally-relevant product launches within the first year by pushing accountability and speed to the edge of the organization.

Conclusion: Structure is a Change Enabler

The Five Whys teaches us that the org chart is usually just a symptom of a deeper, systemic failure within the operating model. True organizational change starts with strategic integrity—a clear, executive-aligned decision on how value will be created, measured, and protected.

The process of re-designing the operating model is not a simple HR exercise; it is the ultimate act of Human-Centered Change. It forces us to remove the structural friction that frustrates employees and delays customer value, ultimately turning resistance into momentum.

“If your structure is slowing down your strategy, your structure is the wrong strategy. Reorganizing without redesigning your metrics and decision rights is an act of self-deception.”

Your first step to diagnosing your organization: Gather five key employees from different functional silos and collectively apply the Five Whys to the most painful, friction-filled process in your business.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.