Resources

Why Most Business Fixes Don't Fix Anything (And How to Find the One That Will)

Andy O'Neil

26 Jan 2026 — 12 min read

Business owner studying wall of strategy notes and project plans, searching for what will actually work

Three Scenarios That Show Where You Push Matters More Than How Hard

You've spent three years trying to make things better. You bought new project management software and revised your SOPs. You started weekly team meetings that everyone dreads but nobody cancels. You even went on a leadership retreat where you filled whiteboards with initiatives. Then came the $4,200 consultant report with twelve recommendations and a confident handshake at the end.

You implemented nine of those recommendations. You put in real effort, made real investments, and followed through on what you said you would do. And yet, nothing actually changed. The same bottlenecks keep showing up, just in different places. The same frustrations keep bubbling up in different meetings. You still have that feeling of pushing a boulder uphill while everyone around you insists the path is flat.

Not all fixes are created equal. There's a hierarchy to where you can push, and most of the obvious fixes happen at the bottom—which is exactly where effort goes to die.

If this sounds familiar, I have some good news and some bad news for you. The bad news is that you're probably about to do it again. You're probably looking at another tool, another hire, or another process change that feels like it should work this time. The good news is that there's a reason your previous fixes didn't stick, and once you understand it, you can stop wasting time and money on changes that won't matter.

Here's the truth that nobody tells you when they sell you that software or hand you that consultant report: not all fixes are created equal. There's a hierarchy to where you can push in a business, and most of the obvious fixes happen at the bottom of that hierarchy, which is exactly where effort goes to die.

The Hierarchy

Four-level hierarchy diagram showing leverage levels from bottom (tools) to top (mindset)

Think of your business as a machine with different layers. You can make changes at any layer, but the impact of those changes varies dramatically depending on where you push.

At the bottom of the hierarchy, you have numbers, settings, and tools. This includes things like buying new software, adjusting prices, changing quotas, tweaking timelines, or hiring more people to do the same work. These changes are easy to make, and they feel productive. You can point to them in meetings and say "look, we did something." But they almost never transform anything.

In the middle of the hierarchy, you have rules, policies, and incentives. This includes new approval workflows, different compensation structures, and updated processes about who does what and when. These changes require more effort, and they can help. But they often just move the bottleneck somewhere else instead of eliminating it.

Higher up, you have information flows and decision timing. This is where things get interesting. Changes at this level affect what people can see, when they see it, and how decisions get made. When you change information flows, behavior often changes naturally without any new rules or policies because people can finally see what's actually happening.

At the top of the hierarchy, you have goals and mindset. This is the highest leverage, and it's also the hardest to see. Changes at this level affect how success is defined, what problems are considered worth solving, and the assumptions that everyone takes for granted.

Most business owners spend their entire career pushing at the bottom two levels. They buy tools, hire people, and write policies. They work hard and implement recommendations. But nothing fundamentally changes because the effort goes to places where effort doesn't compound. Let me show you what this looks like in practice.

Female accountant at busy desk with multiple monitors, looking slightly overwhelmed by workload

Maria's Accounting Firm

Consider Maria, who owns an accounting firm with eight employees. Her team complains about data entry all the time. It takes too long, it's too manual, and there are too many steps. So Maria has spent the last two years trying to fix the data entry problem.

She's bought three different software platforms. She's created better templates and run training sessions. She's currently paying $2,800 per month for tools that were supposed to make everything faster. But nothing has changed. Work still piles up. Clients still wait too long for simple things. Her best employee is talking about leaving because she's burned out on busywork.

Maria thinks she has a data entry problem, so she keeps pushing at the bottom of the hierarchy and trying to make the task faster with better tools. But here's what Maria hasn't seen yet: work sits waiting for partner approval for three to four days before it can move forward. The data entry isn't slow at all. It just has nowhere to go afterward. The partners are the real bottleneck, and nobody can see it because nobody tracks how long work sits in the approval queue.

One dashboard showing queue depth would free up twelve hours every week and add forty percent more capacity—without any new software, new hires, or new training sessions.

Maria's leverage point isn't at the bottom of the hierarchy where she's been pushing. It's higher up, in information flows. If the partners could see their approval queue in real time, they would naturally start clearing it faster. Not because of a new rule or policy, but because the information itself would change their behavior. One dashboard showing queue depth would free up twelve hours every week and add forty percent more capacity without any new software subscriptions, new hires, or new training sessions.

The data entry "problem" would disappear on its own because it was never the real constraint in the first place.

David's Marketing Agency

Consider David, who runs a marketing agency with fifteen people. His designers are always behind schedule, and every single project runs late. Clients are frustrated, and the account managers spend half their time apologizing instead of building relationships.

The obvious solution is to hire more designers, so David posted job listings and started interviewing. He was about to bring on two new people at a cost of about $140,000 per year in salary and benefits. David thinks he has a capacity problem, so he's pushing at the bottom of the hierarchy by trying to increase output by adding headcount.

But here's what David hasn't connected yet: the designers aren't behind because they're slow. They're behind because they can't start working until clients send over the information they need. And clients take six to eight days to respond because nobody gave them a clear deadline in the first place.

Projects don't stall in production. They stall in discovery, before the designers ever touch them. David's leverage point isn't headcount at all. It's information timing. If clients knew exactly when their input was needed and what would happen if they missed the deadline, they would respond faster. Not because David yelled at them, but because the expectations were clear from the start.

One change to the intake process is all it takes. Clear deadlines communicated upfront with a simple statement: "If we don't receive your brand assets by Thursday, your project moves to the following sprint." Pipeline velocity doubles because the designers suddenly have enough capacity to handle the workload. David cancels the job postings, and revenue increases while costs stay flat. The "capacity problem" was never about capacity.

Rachel's Law Practice

Consider Rachel, a solo attorney who built her practice from nothing. Everyone tells Rachel she needs AI tools to review contracts faster because it's what all the legal podcasts are talking about. So she's spent her weekends researching platforms, watching demos, and comparing pricing. She's about to sign up for a $400 per month subscription, but something feels off and she can't quite put her finger on it.

Rachel thinks she has a contract review problem, so she's pushing at the middle of the hierarchy and trying to automate a task that takes too long. But here's what Rachel hasn't traced back yet: the reason she has so many contracts to review is that scope keeps expanding after clients sign the engagement letter. They keep adding things, and the contracts she's reviewing don't match the work she actually agreed to do.

Rachel's leverage point isn't contract review speed. It's scope clarity in the initial consultation. If clients understood exactly what was included and what wasn't before they signed anything, the scope creep would stop before it started. One change to how initial consultations work, with explicit boundaries documented before any agreement, would create a different conversation at the start that prevents the messy conversation at the end.

Contract review workload drops by sixty percent, not because Rachel is reviewing faster, but because she's reviewing the right contracts. Scope is locked before engagement, not negotiated after. When Rachel finally does sign up for the AI tool three months later, it actually works because now it's solving the right problem.

The Pattern

Maria, David, and Rachel all had the same issue. They were pushing at the wrong level of the hierarchy.

Maria kept buying software at the bottom level when the leverage point was partner approval visibility at a higher level. David was about to hire designers at the bottom level when the leverage point was client deadline communication at a higher level. Rachel was about to automate contract review at the middle level when the leverage point was scope clarity in consultations at a higher level.

Each of them was about to invest significant resources at a low-leverage level while the actual leverage point sat untouched and invisible, creating the same problems over and over. This is why most business fixes don't fix anything. They're aimed at the wrong level.

Why We Default to the Bottom

If pushing at the bottom doesn't work, why does everyone keep doing it? There are a few reasons.

The bottom is visible. You can see the software. You can count the headcount. You can point to the policy document. It feels like progress because there's something tangible to show for it. The higher levels are invisible. You can't see information flows or point to decision timing. Mindset doesn't show up on a balance sheet. So we ignore what we can't see and focus on what we can.

Software companies sell software. Consultants sell recommendations. Recruiters sell candidates. Nobody makes money telling you to look at information flows.

The bottom is also comfortable. Buying a tool is easier than questioning how decisions get made. Hiring someone is simpler than examining why the work piles up where it does. Writing a policy feels productive even when it doesn't change behavior.

The bottom is what everyone sells, too. Software companies sell software. Consultants sell recommendations. Recruiters sell candidates. Nobody makes money telling you to look at information flows, so that's not what you hear about.

And the bottom is where the symptoms show up. Data entry feels slow. Designers seem behind. Contracts take too long. The symptoms are real, but they're just not the cause. The cause is almost always higher up in the hierarchy, and you won't find it by staring at the symptoms.

How to Find Your Leverage Point

Here's the question that changes everything: "If this fix works perfectly, will the underlying problem still exist somewhere in the system?"

If the answer is yes, you're pushing too low.

Maria could have asked herself: "If data entry gets faster, will work still pile up?" The answer is yes because the partner approval bottleneck would still be there. That's how she would have known to look higher.

David could have asked himself: "If I hire more designers, will projects still run late?" The answer is yes because clients would still take six to eight days to respond. That's how he would have known to look higher.

Rachel could have asked herself: "If contract review gets faster, will I still be reviewing contracts that shouldn't exist?" The answer is yes because scope would still be expanding after engagement. That's how she would have known to look higher.

This "And Then What?" test works every time. Take your proposed fix and run it forward three steps. If the chain leads back to the same problem, you're at the wrong level.

Another question that helps is this: "What would have to change for this problem to become impossible?" Not managed. Not reduced. Impossible.

For Maria, the data entry problem becomes impossible when there's no bottleneck downstream for work to pile up behind, which points to partner approvals. For David, the late project problem becomes impossible when designers can start on time every time, which points to client responsiveness. For Rachel, the contract review problem becomes impossible when contracts match the actual scope of work, which points to initial consultations.

The answer to "what would make this impossible?" always points to your leverage point.

What Your Business Looks Like at the Right Level

When you stop pushing at the bottom and find where pushing actually matters, the whole experience of running your business changes.

The feeling of pushing a boulder uphill goes away. You stop fighting the system and start working with it. The effort you put in shows up in results, and the changes you make actually stick.

The endless cycle of improvement projects that don't improve anything stops. You develop the ability to tell the difference between real opportunities and attractive distractions. You say no more often, and the things you say yes to actually work.

The tools you already own start earning their cost. Not because the tools changed, but because they're finally pointed at the right problem. The software that collected dust becomes useful, and the processes that nobody followed become relevant.

Same team, same tools, but different results. The capacity was always there. It was just being consumed by friction in the wrong places.

The capacity you didn't know you had emerges. Same team, same tools, but different results. The capacity was always there. It was just being consumed by friction in the wrong places.

Maria walks into the office on Monday morning knowing work is flowing. The dashboard shows partner approvals are current, and her team isn't waiting. Clients aren't frustrated. She has time to think about growth instead of putting out fires.

David reviews the project board and sees things actually moving. Clients are responding on time because the expectations were clear, and designers have what they need. He's not interviewing or onboarding. He's watching margin improve.

Rachel looks at her calendar and sees consultations instead of disputes. She has clients who understand what they're getting and contracts that match reality. The Sunday-night dread is gone.

This is what's possible when you find where pushing actually matters.

The Question That Changes Everything

Before your next fix, before your next tool purchase, before your next hire, ask yourself one question: "Am I pushing at the bottom of the hierarchy, or somewhere that actually matters?"

If you're adjusting numbers, buying tools, or adding headcount, you're probably at the bottom. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Sometimes bottom-level fixes are appropriate. But they should be intentional, not default.

If you're not sure where your leverage point is, run the "And Then What?" test. Take your proposed fix and follow it forward three steps. See where the chain leads.

And if you want help finding it, that's what I do. I sit with business owners and walk through their actual workflows in real time. We look at where work piles up. We find where the real bottleneck is. We trace symptoms back to structures.

Eight hundred hours of these co-building sessions taught me something: the leverage point is almost never where people think it is. It's almost always higher up in the hierarchy, in information flows or decision timing or assumptions that everyone takes for granted.

But once you see it, you can't unsee it. And once you push there, everything downstream changes. Same team, same tools, different results. That's what leverage actually looks like.