Correction | The speed at which you acknowledge and fix deviations, rather than sticking to a plan, determines the quality of management.
Correction
It is not the companies that follow plans as intended that are strong.
It is the companies that can fix things quickly when they deviate that are strong.
Many managers try to stick to their plans.
They stick to the budget.
They stick to the policy.
They stick to the priorities once decided.
Of course, that in itself is not wrong.
However, what is truly dangerous in crisis management is prioritizing sticking to the plan even when deviations have occurred.
The market moves.
Customers change too.
The front lines get clogged up.
The assumptions you made can easily collapse.
What is needed at that time is not to push through the plan with sheer willpower.
Acknowledge the deviation and fix it quickly
What makes the difference in crisis management is not the beauty of the initial plan.
It is how quickly you can revise your assumptions and change your actions after a deviation occurs.
The theme this time is thatcorrection.
In the previous article, I wrote that the reason the front lines do not move is not motivation, but that there is a blockage somewhere.
Click here for the previous article
Waiting for confirmation, exception approvals, role boundaries, waiting for other departments.
When such friction accumulates, the front lines stop.
This is true.
However, even after the friction is visible, a company can still weaken.
The blockage is visible.
The deviation in numbers is also visible.
The sense of discomfort from the front lines is also being raised.
Even so, the movement does not change.
Why?
Because the correction is slow.
Making a plan is important.
Deciding on a policy is also important.
But in a crisis, there are times when it is more important to adjust to reality than to stick to it.
Companies that are strong in a crisis are not companies whose plans do not go off track.
They are companies that can discard their assumptions and fix things the moment they go off track.
Situation
There is a common scene in companies.
At the beginning of the month, a policy was decided.
This month, we will prioritize gross profit.
We will protect key customers.
We will cut down on low-profit projects.
We will also reduce development interruptions.
The direction is correct.
The executives are also convinced.
It has been shared with the front lines as well.
At first glance, the company is in order.
But after two weeks, reality begins to deviate little by little.
Among the key customers, the ones that were truly at risk were not the group we had anticipated.
We were supposed to cut low-profit projects, but in reality, projects with poor payment terms were putting more pressure on our funds.
We were supposed to reduce development interruptions, but emergency responses for existing customers have increased, and the front lines are starting to collapse in a different sense.
The projects that sales should be pursuing are also,
It might have been more accurate to look at the speed of decision-making.
The front lines are already feeling that something is off.
The administrative departments can also see the discrepancies.
Yet, the company tries to move forward as planned.
"We decided on this policy for this month, so..."
"Let's just run with it until the end for now."
"Changing it now will confuse the front lines."
"Let's just finish what we planned first."
This is how corrections are delayed.
As a result, what happens?
There is a policy.
It is being executed.
But you end up diligently heading in a direction that no longer fits reality.
This is dangerous.
In crisis management, sticking to a flawed plan can be the most costly mistake.
--
The Problem
Many managers view corrections as "wavering."
This is where it gets difficult.
Changing something once decided.
Communicating it to the front lines all over again.
Overturning the premises in an executive meeting.
It can look like a lack of consistency.
It can also look like a lack of resolve.
That is why they hesitate to make corrections.
But in reality, it is the opposite.
What is needed in a crisis is not the stubbornness to defend an initial decision.
It is the strength to discard that initial decision when reality proves it wrong.
That is what is required.
What happens in companies that cannot make corrections
Covering up the gap between budget and reality with explanations
Pushing through with a policy for the month even if it doesn't fit the front lines
Continuing to chase the wrong KPIs
Executives starting to say, "It's too late to change it now"
The front lines stop speaking up even when they feel something is wrong
Once this starts, the company drifts away from reality while appearing to follow the plan.
Moreover, the more diligent the company, the more likely it is to fall into this trap.
We decided properly.
We shared it properly.
We are proceeding properly.
That is precisely why there is psychological resistance to changing course midway.
However, what is needed in management during a crisis is not consistency.
It is economic rationality.
There is no point in sticking to a plan if you are losing to reality.
In fact, the more you try to stick to it, the deeper the wounds will be.
--
Judgment, Management, and Execution
So, how should corrections be handled?
First, what is necessary as a judgment is
to position the plan not as something to be followed, but as a hypothesis to be checked against reality.
Is this priority correct?
Is the judgment to focus on this customer segment correct?
Can funds be protected with these project criteria?
Will the field operations run with this division of roles?
A plan is not something you hold on the premise that it is the correct answer from the start.
It is something you hold on the premise that you will try it, and if there is a deviation, you will fix it.
Companies that lack this awareness will be slow to make corrections.
Next, what is necessary as management is
to set in advance what will trigger a correction.is.
At what percentage of deviation in which figures will you review it?
What field signs will cause you to change priorities?
What needs to happen in which customer segment for you to revise your response policy?
At what point will you redesign the interruption rules?
Without this, even if a deviation is visible, the attitude of "it's not yet time to correct" will continue.
And then the wounds will deepen just like that.
And what is necessary as execution is
to make corrections small, fast, and repetitive.There is no need to overturn everything in a big way.
Change the definition of key customers.
Change one criterion for project selection.
Change one figure you look at in meetings.
Tighten the interruption conditions by one level.
Redraw the boundaries of roles slightly.
Companies that can make such small corrections quickly will hold up even in a crisis.
Conversely, companies that think only big changes count as corrections are always slow to correct.
Strong management is not management that never deviates from the plan.
It is management that is quick to correct against deviations.
--
Result
Companies that are quick to correct have shallower wounds.
When you see a discrepancy in sales, change how you view the project.
When you feel something is off with retention rates, change the priority of customer support.
When cash flow peaks and valleys become thin, change payment terms and expenditure order.
When friction increases on the front lines, change roles and meeting designs.
Companies that make these corrections quickly can recover even if they miss the mark.
A single poor decision is less likely to become a fatal wound.
This is because they do not run in the wrong direction for long.
Conversely, in companies where corrections are slow, discrepancies accumulate.
What started as a small feeling of unease becomes a number, then a problem, then a debate over responsibility, and finally, a major restructuring.
What could have been a minor adjustment ends up requiring major surgery.
What makes the difference in a crisis is not just the correctness of the first move.
It is how quickly you can make the second and third moves.In other words,
the speed of correction determines the quality of management.
--
Structural Explanation
Why is correction so important?
The reason is that
management during a crisis is a 'continuous series of decisions made amidst uncertainty'.
You cannot know everything from the start.
The market moves.
Customers move.
Internal fatigue changes.
Cash flow peaks and valleys change.
The fact that premises are shaken is not abnormal.
What is abnormal is that even when premises are shaken,
you prioritize sticking to a plan you once made.This is the problem.
This also connects to the friction mentioned in the previous article.
If friction is increasing, you must fix the execution design.
It also connects to the speed mentioned in the article before that.
Companies that are slow to correct are slow not only in their initial decisions but also in their subsequent actions.
It also connects to variance.
Click here for the article on variance.
Even if you see discrepancies in the numbers, if you do not correct them, management ends at reporting.
In other words, correction is not an auxiliary act.
It is management itself.Rather than creating a plan, it is about adjusting it to fit reality.
This is the essence of management during a crisis.
--
Conclusion
The speed at which you acknowledge and fix discrepancies, rather than sticking to a plan, determines the quality of management.
What is needed in crisis management is not the strength to cling to what you once decided.
It is the strength to discard premises and make corrections when reality tells you otherwise.
Companies that can correct can recover even if they miss the mark.
Companies that cannot correct will be deeply wounded while thinking they are doing the right thing.
In other words, correction is not about breaking a plan.
It is about re-aligning with reality to keep the company alive.
In the next article, I will cover one of the biggest factors that make this correction difficult:exceptions.It is about how an organization where 'just this once' accumulates begins to operate based on precedent rather than standards.
If this article resonated with you, please 'like' it so you can look back on it later.
In this series, I will verbalize crisis management from the perspective of a 'CEO's right-hand person,' divided into symptoms, judgment, management, and execution. If you want to follow the rest, please follow me.
The word that should remain at the end is correction.