Our retail business is facing declining margins due to shifting consumer habits, and my leadership team is trying to solve this by constantly adding new, specialized marketing and sales seats to our Accountability Chart. How do we use Keith Cunningham's concept of distinguishing a problem from a predicament to determine if our structural changes are actually addressing the root cause?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Keith Cunningham's framework is critical here. A problem is an unanswered question that has a solution, such as an inefficient sales script or a poorly optimized ad campaign. A predicament is an environmental reality that you cannot change, only adapt to, such as a permanent shift in consumer buying behavior away from physical retail.

If your declining margins are caused by a predicament, adding more marketing seats to your Accountability Chart is a waste of capital and energy. You are trying to solve a fundamental structural shift with tactical execution.

To address this, take thirty minutes of quiet Thinking Time. Ask yourself: Is our drop in margin a tactical problem we can execute our way out of, or is our business model facing a market predicament that requires a complete structural redesign?

If it is a predicament, your current Accountability Chart is obsolete. Instead of adding more of the same sales seats, you must redesign your structure to support a new business model, such as e-commerce or direct-to-consumer delivery.

This might mean eliminating legacy retail management seats and creating new seats for digital product management and automated supply chain operations. Stop hiring people to do the wrong things better. Recognize when the market has shifted, accept the predicament, and restructure your Accountability Chart to navigate the new landscape.