The following discussion points out how the writer used the elements for writing about a problem diagnosis.
Position Statement: Defi ne the Problem
In a few words, the writer describes the problem she will be diagnosing:
Don Rogers faces a problem: The Electronic Products Division’s perfor- mance has plunged in the last two years. Its reputation for delivery and ser- vice is slipping, morale is low, and employees engage in unending confl ict.
Broadly, the problem is a precipitous decline in the performance of the organization. Keeping the problem defi nition simple gives your readers a lucid and uncomplicated understanding of what you’re diagnosing. The writer follows the defi nition with a description of major symptoms. A list of all the symptoms would be very long and isn’t necessary. The major symptoms are adequate for readers to grasp the problem.
Position Statement: Summarize the Causes of the Problem
After the problem has been defi ned, the next task of the essay is to sum- marize the diagnosis— the principal causes of the problem. The writer does this in the last sentence of the fi rst paragraph:
Many of these issues can be traced to external causes, Rogers’s poor lead- ership, the dysfunction of EPD teams, a clash of cultures, and the lack of corporate support.
The sentence has two purposes. First, it gives readers an immediate understanding of the writer’s diagnosis. Second, it tells readers how the argument is going to be organized. The writer is implicitly promising to prove the causes in the order she has named them.
The writer covers the fi rst two elements of this problem- diagnosis essay in one modest paragraph. That fact points to the important function of the beginning of an essay. All of us read an essay with the expectation that it will tell us what journey we’re about to embark on. The beginning also can enhance the persuasive impact of the essay. We are more likely to take seriously a writer who lays out her thinking clearly and logically.
Prove Each Cause
The writer’s diagnosis consists of fi ve causes. That number is large enough to credibly diagnose a large- scale problem and small enough to credibly prove in an essay limited to 1,500 words.
The author fi rst discusses external causes. She states facts from the case and makes an inference— that external events have put EPD at a competi- tive disadvantage and links that to the declining results of the last two years.
She then turns her attention to internal issues at EPD. This move- ment from external to internal is common when diagnosing an organiza- tional problem. The large amount of case evidence about Rogers and the departmental teams makes clear that they are contributors to the problem.
It also makes sense that the leader of a troubled organization probably has some responsibility for the situation.
To argue that Rogers’s leadership is a cause, she uses a well- known framework for successful change management. Her proof is divided into fi ve categories of the framework (the other categories aren’t relevant), and she provides case evidence relevant to each one. Her proof is persuasive because it uses an appropriate framework taught in the course the writer was taking, it is grounded in facts, and it shows how thoroughly Rogers has failed.
The writer follows the same pattern used in the leadership section for the argument about EPD teams. She applies an appropriate course framework defi ning team eff ectiveness and cites evidence in four relevant categories of the framework. Again, her proof is persuasive because the framework is appropriate for the subject, the evidence she cites is strong, and the argument shows why the teams are dysfunctional in several ways.
The argument concludes with two causes about which there’s less evidence in the case. The writer views culture as yet another aspect of
the confl ict taking place at EPD. Rogers operates as if the EPD culture were no diff erent than that of corporate headquarters, not realizing that the division has a culture of subservience to a powerful leader. Although the people of EPD don’t behave the way he probably expects them to, he behaves as he did at corporate. That blinds him to the need to change the EPD culture to eliminate the ducking of responsibility in the absence of a dominant leader and instead encourages employees to take risks and work collaboratively.
The last of the fi ve causes is one that many writers would miss. It is based entirely on inferences the writer has made from case facts. It’s easy to criticize Rogers for his lack of management and leadership experi- ence. Corporate promoted him anyway, possibly because of his technical expertise. But EPD needed a leader with great change management skills to accomplish two goals, one external and one internal: to cope with the radical shift in the competitive environment and with the complicated internal dynamic.
Present an Action Plan
The action plan begins with a statement of goals that is as simple and concise as the essay’s statement of the problem and diagnosis. The plan divides steps into short- and long- term actions. The writer’s sequencing of action in time refl ects incisive thinking about what must be accomplished quickly and what can wait or can only be accomplished later.
The fi rst short- term step of the action plan is linked to the fi rst goal of the action plan: “Rogers needs to change his own priorities.” The step suggests how Rogers should do that.
Action plans address the key points of an argument; an action plan for a problem diagnosis should have steps that fi x the causes of the prob- lem. The second step of the action plan in the sample essay takes on a cause identifi ed in the argument about Rogers’s leadership: create a sense of urgency. Other short- term steps also address the change management failures. The fi nal short- term action is connected to the external causes.
EPD is at a competitive disadvantage in the commercial market because the product development process is broken. The last short- term step seeks to fi x the process.
The fi rst three long- term steps specify actions that take time. Physically moving a large number of people and modifying an organization’s culture and incentives involve diff erent processes, but they all have something in common: they take time to achieve.