Project Management Workshops

Problem-Solving Approach A systematic problem-solving approach involves understanding the issue, analyzing it thoroughly, and devising an effective solution. Begin by defining the problem clearly to identify its root cause. Gather relevant data and evaluate possible solutions by considering their feasibility and potential outcomes. Next, select the most suitable solution and implement it with a clear plan. Continuously monitor the results to ensure the problem is resolved effectively. If needed, adjust the approach based on feedback and outcomes. This methodical process fosters clarity, reduces errors, and ensures efficient resolution of challenges, whether personal, professional, or academic.

🎯 Why Most Business Problems Remain Unsolved (And How to Fix That) Last week, I had the privilege of facilitating a Problem Solving & Business Acumen workshop for our teams at L'Oréal Indonesia. 💡 The Problem We All Face (But Rarely Talk About) Here's an uncomfortable truth: we're wired to jump to solutions. In business, this looks like: ✔️ Launching promotions without understanding why sales declined ✔️ Hiring more people without diagnosing process inefficiencies ✔️ Copying competitor tactics without validating if they fit our context The cost? Wasted resources, frustrated teams, and recurring problems that never truly go away. According to the World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs Report 2023, analytical and critical thinking are the #1 and #2 most important skills for workers. Yet, most of us were never formally taught how to think critically or solve problems systematically. 🛠️ The Problem-Solving Process: A Step-by-Step Guide Step 1: Define the Problem (Don't Jump to Judgment!) 📝 Craft a Problem Statement with 6 components: "How can [responsible party] improve/reduce [reality] to meet [expectation] within [timeline] without [anti-goals], in order to fulfill [reason]?" Example: "How can the product team launch a new product on time in Q4 2024 without sacrificing key processes, in order to meet the sales target?" Step 2: Find Alternatives (Issue Tree + MECE) Once the problem is clear, break it down using an Issue Tree. For instance, if mascara sales dropped -14% YoY: 📦 Placement → Gondola compliance, visibility, signage 🎁 Promotion → BOGO mechanics, POS materials 💰 Price → Elasticity, perceived value 🎨 Product Claims → Content freshness, reviews 🔥 Competition → Share of voice, endcap presence ✅ Ensure hypotheses are MECE (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive)—no overlaps, no gaps. Step 3: Test Your Hypotheses Don't fall in love with your first idea. Run quick tests: 📊 For a skincare serum declining in pharmacies, we tested: ✔️ Hypothesis A: Reduced pharmacist advocacy is the issue → Micro-detailing pilot in 10 stores ✔️ Hypothesis B: Cold chain OOS drives lost sales → Warehouse SOP audit + temperature logs ✔️ Hypothesis C: Execution gaps suppress promo ROI → Endcap compliance audit Each hypothesis had clear KPIs and timelines—no guessing, just data. Step 4: Make the Decision (Impact vs. Effort Matrix) Not all solutions are equal. Prioritize: 🟩 Quick wins—do this! 🟦 Strategic bets 🟨 Fill-ins 🟥 Avoid Focus on low effort, high impact moves first. Build momentum, then tackle the big bets. 🚨 What Happens When We Skip These Steps? A mascara brand saw sales drop -14% YoY. The reaction? "Let's run a BOGO promo!" The result? Sales stayed flat. Why? Because the real issues were: ❌ Poor gondola compliance (only 68% correct facings) ❌ Weak influencer share of voice ❌ Competitor secured prime endcap space The lesson: Solutions applied to the wrong problem = wasted budget and missed targets.

Mentoring and coaching are not the same thing. Most founders use the words interchangeably... And end up getting less from both. I did not know the difference until I spent 10 days training and qualifying as a business coach at INSEAD in 2023. Here is what I learned: ✅ Mentoring uses experience and shares learning. A mentor has been where you are. They have made mistakes, built the business, and lived through the consequences. When you bring them a problem, they draw on all of that to tell you what they would do and why. My first mentor was Nigel Morris, the co-founder of Capital One. Three hours in his office changed the direction of HomeServe in America. ✅ Coaching facilitates thinking, exploring options and decision-making. A coach asks the questions that help you find them yourself. The best questions are often the simplest ones. - "Why do you think that?"  - "What are you trying to achieve?"  - "What choices do you have here?" Sometimes the most basic questions elicit the most powerful solutions. The problem is that coaching alone would never have been especially useful for the founders I work with. And mentoring without first understanding the real issue or opportunity can miss the point entirely. So I combined them into what I call Coachment. You start with coaching, asking the right questions to properly diagnose the problem or opportunity. Then you move into mentoring, applying real business experience to what you have just uncovered. Think of it like a medical check-up. The X-ray machine diagnoses the issue. (The coach) And the specialist consultant uses their experience to decide what to do about it. (The mentor) Together they are far more useful than either one alone. Most founders I meet have never had either. If you are serious about scaling, you need to find both. If you'd like more information on building and scaling your business, subscribe to How To Make a Billion. It's a free weekly newsletter with lessons and frameworks from over 40 years of entrepreneurship. Subscribe here: https://lnkd.in/ergDQtiK Comment below with your thoughts on seeking counsel.  If you have a coach or mentor who has helped your business scale, please tag them to show your appreciation. 

We solve the wrong problems – and That is the Real Problem at Work   Many executives spend a large amount of their time firefighting. Often, they are trying to solve the right problem. The classic case is that of Kodak, which once dominated the photographic industry worldwide. It had pioneered digital technologies well before their competitors, yet the leadership wanted to stick to the legacy of inexpensive camera with expensive consumables (film and paper) for high margins. Kodak’s initial reluctance to embrace and commercialize its own digital inventions caused a rapid erosion of its market share. It launched competitive digital cameras late - in the 2000s. They tried to perfect their digital technology while losing money on the cameras sold. The real problem wasn't that they needed better digital cameras—it was that the business model had shifted from selling cameras to selling services and software. What is the lesson we can take? Before diving into any solution, invest some time asking "What problem am I really solving?" It is useful to have separate discussions on defining the problem first, and having identified it, then working on finding solutions. Ensure you are looking at the root cause and not the symptoms of the problem. Write down multiple versions of the problem statement. Brainstorm and iterate. Version one might be "Our team misses deadlines." Version two becomes "Our team receives unclear project requirements." Version three reveals "Our team lacks a standardized way to prioritize competing requests." This simple exercise stops you from building elaborate solutions for surface-level symptoms. It prevents you from becoming the person who automates a broken process instead of fixing it; or optimizes something that shouldn't exist. Pick your biggest work challenge. Check whether you have defined problem statement correctly. You'll find yourself solving the root cause instead of chasing endless symptoms.   Picking the right problem leads to simpler solutions. Would love to hear your experience where you had to redefine your problem statement. 

A lot of leaders confuse coaching with mentoring. The difference matters more than you think. When I’m called into an organization, I often see managers struggling because they’re unknowingly blending the two. They think offering advice (mentorship) is coaching, or they think asking questions (coaching) is enough when their team actually needs guidance. Here’s how it works: Mentoring transfers knowledge, experience, and culture. It’s the wisdom download, the “here’s how I’ve done it.” Coaching cultivates autonomy, empowerment, and critical thinking. It’s the mirror, the “what do you see, and how will you act?” Both are valuable. But they unlock entirely different outcomes. Mentoring accelerates learning. Coaching expands capability. When leaders blur the lines, they either create dependency (team can’t move without their advice) or frustration (team feels guided but directionless). That’s why top-performing organizations design clarity around this. Managers are trained to know when to mentor, when to coach, and how to switch gears seamlessly. Because sometimes your people need a map. Other times, they need a mirror. The difference is the difference between a team that stalls and a team that scales. The visual below breaks down these distinctions, it’s worth saving if you lead others. The leaders who master this balance aren’t just effective in the moment; they become culture multipliers. Most companies are still treating managers as “advice machines.” The ones who learn to build coaching capacity now will have a decisive advantage in retention, culture, and performance over the next decade. This isn’t optional anymore, it’s competitive edge. If your managers are stuck giving advice when they should be coaching (or asking questions when they should be mentoring), the issue isn’t effort, it’s design. I help founders and executives turn managers into culture multipliers by teaching them exactly how to balance coaching and mentoring. Book a call if you want your managers to become your strongest growth lever. #Leadership #Management #ExecutiveCoaching #OrganizationalCulture

Most teams fix problems. Few build systems that prevent them. Problem-solving isn’t about throwing tools at symptoms. It’s about choosing the right framework for the job and using it with precision. After 20+ years building fintechs and scaling operations across 3 continents, I’ve learned this: ➟ Teams that scale fast don’t rely on guesswork. ➟ They rely on repeatable decision systems. Here are 13 frameworks that separate reactivity from real resolution: 𝟭. 𝗣𝗗𝗖𝗔 → Build, test, refine in cycles 𝟮. 𝗗𝗠𝗔𝗜𝗖 → Fix process at the root 𝟯. 𝗖𝗜𝗥𝗖𝗟𝗘𝗦 → Structure product decisions 𝟰. 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗼 → Solve the 20% that cause 80% of chaos 𝟱. 𝗥𝗖𝗔 → Go beyond symptoms 𝟲. 𝗦𝗪𝗢𝗧 → Analyze from all sides 𝟳. 𝗟𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗝𝗮𝗺 → Solve in under an hour 𝟴. 𝗢𝗢𝗗𝗔 → Adapt faster than the context 𝟵. 𝗞𝗲𝗽𝗻𝗲𝗿-𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗲 → Decide with logic, not noise 𝟭𝟬. 𝟴𝗗 → Solve recurring problems cross-functionally 𝟭𝟭. 𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗭 → Invent beyond the obvious 𝟭𝟮. 𝗦𝗖𝗤𝗔 → Communicate with clarity under pressure 𝟭𝟯. 𝗙𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗯𝗼𝗻𝗲 → Visualize root causes in one shot Problem-solving isn’t a soft skill. It’s an operating advantage. 📌 Save this for your next offsite, sprint, or product review. ♻️ Repost to raise the bar on how teams solve what matters. 🔔 Follow Nadir Ali for strategy, leadership & productivity insights.

My younger daughter just wrapped up an internship at a large US investment bank. She was lucky. Her manager mentored her, taught real-world skills, and trusted her with real responsibility while giving her the support to succeed. It reminded me of the mentors who shaped my own career, and of the people I’ve had the privilege to mentor. Great mentorship isn’t coffee chats. It’s a working relationship with outcomes. What great mentors do • Set the bar, then lift it. Share clear expectations and the “why,” then add a stretch assignment with guardrails. • Teach judgment, not just tasks. Narrate trade-offs, risks, and how you decided. Let them see you think. • Give visibility. Put them in the room, give them a speaking role, share credit in public, and coach in private. • Offer specific feedback. Point to the behavior, the effect, and the fix. Make it timely and kind. • Sponsor, not only advise. Open a door, make a call, attach your name to an opportunity. That signal compounds. • Build safety and ownership. Create space to ask “naive” questions, and insist on owning the deliverable end to end. What successful mentees do • Show up prepared. Bring a one-page update with goals, progress, blockers, and a draft to review. • Ask for feedback on real work. “Which two changes would most improve this note?” beats “Any advice?” • Take the stretch. Say yes to hard things, then clarify scope, resources, and deadlines. • Close the loop. Send a crisp follow-up with what you heard, what you’ll do, and by when. Then do it. • Build a learning log. Capture decisions made, what worked, what you’d change next time. Share it. • Pay it forward. Teach someone else the thing you just learned. Teaching locks in mastery. A simple frame I like, for both sides REAL mentorship: Responsibility, Exposure, Accountability, Learning. Give and take real responsibility. Create exposure to rooms and decisions. Hold each other accountable for commitments. Turn every project into a learning cycle. Rituals that work • A standing 45-minute 1:1 each month, plus ad hoc check-ins when decisions are live. • Shadow, then lead. Observe once, co-pilot once, then fly solo with a safety net. • Post-mortems without blame. Three questions, what surprised us, where were we lucky, what will we change next time. To Shreya ‘s manager, thank you for modeling the craft. To my mentors, I’m still drawing on your lessons. And to everyone who mentors or seeks one, what practice on your side makes the biggest difference?

“Figure-it-out” is a superpower. But like every superpower, it has a shadow side. And most of us who rely on this muscle were never taught how to manage the parts that quietly work against us. If you’re one of those operators, builders, or internal innovators who can turn chaos into clarity, here are the shadows to watch for: 1. Doing everything yourself You see the answer faster than everyone else, so you just take it on. Before you know it, you’re the only person who knows how anything works. How to work with it: Pause long enough to share context. Spread knowledge early. You’re still the engine, but you’re no longer the bottleneck. 2. Solving the wrong problems Your brain loves puzzles, so you start fixing, optimizing, and improving everything… even the things that don’t matter. How to work with it: Ask: “Is this actually important, or am I just itching to solve something?” Prioritize impact, not activity. 3. Moving faster than the team can absorb You connect dots in minutes that take others days. The team ends up confused, misaligned, or trying to catch up. How to work with it: Build quick alignment loops. A 60–second check-in keeps your speed without creating chaos. 4. Needing to be the one who figures it out Your identity gets wrapped up in being the solver. If you’re not the one fixing it, you feel less valuable. How to work with it: Shift from “I solved it” to “the team can solve it without me.” That’s the leap from doer to leader. 5. Using problem-solving to avoid the real work It’s easier to build a new system than to have a tough conversation. Easier to fix a workflow than to challenge a priority. How to work with it: Notice when solving is a distraction. Ask: “Is there a conversation or decision I’m avoiding?” Your figure-it-out energy is a real superpower. It’s what companies need most right now. But the next level isn’t about solving more. It’s about choosing when to solve, when to step back, when to bring others in, and when to let good-enough be enough. That’s how you go from hero to multiplier. From problem-solver to leader.

Most leaders don’t know whether they need a Coach or a Mentor. This post will answer all your queries. In senior teams, I often see a dangerous assumption: that coaching and mentorship are interchangeable. They’re not. In fact, choosing the wrong one can quietly stall your growth, dilute accountability, or even fracture team trust. Here’s the difference: Mentorship is wisdom transfer. It offers lived experience, guidance, and storytelling. It helps you avoid landmines and see the road ahead. Coaching is perspective expansion. It uses structured questioning, reflection, and non-directive space to help you generate your own clarity and strategy. Both are valuable but only when applied with intention. So how do you know what you or your team actually need? Here’s a quick diagnostic I use inside leadership workshops and 1:1 coaching: 👉 You need mentorship when: You’re stepping into a role you’ve never held before You want pattern recognition from someone who’s done it You’re looking for a roadmap, not just a mirror 👉 You need coaching when: You’re making high-stakes decisions with no obvious answer You’re experiencing tension between options, identities, or priorities You want to develop your own clarity, not adopt someone else’s The best-performing teams build internal mentorship networks to pass on culture, context, and lessons learned. And they embed external coaching to challenge thinking, surface blind spots, and realign behaviors at the top. What most leaders miss is this: Coaching upgrades your thinking. Mentorship accelerates your direction. Together, they compound performance. In every workshop I lead with C-suite teams or high-potential leaders, I combine both disciplines with precision. Some moments call for direct insight. Others call for space and stretch. Because if all you have is advice, you risk creating dependency. And if all you have is reflection, you risk spinning in thought. High-performance leadership requires both: Mentors who’ve walked the path and Coaches who challenge how you walk it If you're leading a team that’s growing fast but feeling friction, I help organizations install the right support system across coaching, mentorship, and performance alignment. Let’s build a team that doesn’t just perform but evolves. #ExecutiveCoaching #Mentorship #LeadershipDevelopment #CultureTransformation #ScalingLeadership #HighPerformanceTeams

Early in my career, I thought leadership meant knowing what to do and showing people how to do it. I was wrong. What I could not figure out was when to coach, when to mentor, and when to guide. I often used the wrong approach at the wrong moment. Sometimes I gave advice when someone needed space to think. Often, I asked questions and held expectations when the person genuinely lacked the knowledge or experience to be successful. I usually focused so narrowly on the individuals I was leading that I failed to help them see the larger system, the longer horizon, and the people affected by our decisions. It took me far too long to understand that these are three distinct leadership disciplines. >> Coaching engages and empowers the individual. We coach when the person has the potential, knowledge, and capacity to discover the answer. Through questions, reflection, accountability, and goal setting, we strengthen autonomy and awaken creativity. The coach does not take the steering wheel. The coach helps the person learn to steer. >> Mentoring installs knowledge and leverages experience. We mentor when experience is necessary. We mentor when stories, frameworks, pattern recognition, and lived lessons can shorten the learning curve. Mentoring is not simply giving instructions. It is transferring understanding in a way that helps another person make better sense of what is going on. The mentor shares experiences and transfers knowledge effectively. >> Guiding changes the perspective from “me” to “we.” We guide when the decision must connect to a larger purpose, a longer time horizon, or a wider community of people. Guiding builds empathy, reveals interdependence, and helps people understand how their choices affect the trust, loyalty, and advocacy of others. The guide helps us see beyond ourselves. Each discipline is valuable on its own and there is a right time for each. Coaching without mentoring, however, can leave people repeatedly rediscovering knowledge that already exists. Mentoring without coaching might create dependence and suppress autonomy and volition. Coaching and mentoring without guiding can produce highly capable individuals who optimize for themselves while unintentionally weakening the whole. Leadership is in the intersection. It is where all of these behaviors converge. It requires the judgment to know when to evoke an answer, when to offer one, and when to widen the frame entirely. I wish I had understood this earlier. I would have talked less. Listened differently. Shared experience more intentionally. And spent far more time helping people connect their goals to the human beings around them. Leadership is the ability to move between all three in service of trust, loyalty, and advocacy. Coach the person. Mentor the capability. Guide the perspective. I hope this is helpful. If it is, save it, share it, repost it and help me get the word out.