Blog

Why Most People Get the Five Whys Completely Arse-About: A Reality Check from the Trenches

I was sitting in a boardroom in Parramatta last month watching a perfectly intelligent operations manager butcher the Five Whys technique so badly I nearly choked on my flat white.

She's drilling down into why their customer complaints had tripled, right? First why: "Because our response times are too slow." Second why: "Because we're understaffed." Third why: "Because recruitment is hard." Fourth why: "Because millennials don't want to work." Fifth why: "Because social media."

I kid you not. Social media was her root cause for customer service failures.

This is exactly why the Five Whys technique – arguably one of the most powerful problem-solving approaches in business – gets such a bad rap. People think it's about asking "why" five times and calling it a day. They couldn't be more wrong.

The Toyota Way (That Everyone Misses)

Here's what most business coaches won't tell you about the Five Whys: it was never about hitting exactly five questions. Toyota didn't invent this technique because five was some magic number – they developed it because they were obsessed with finding the actual root cause, not just the most convenient scapegoat.

Taiichi Ohno, the bloke who popularised this at Toyota, used to say you might need three whys, you might need seven. The number was irrelevant. What mattered was getting to the real systemic issue, not the symptoms everyone was complaining about.

But here's where Australian business gets it spectacularly wrong. We're so bloody impatient that we rush through the whys like we're ordering a coffee during the morning rush. "Why did this happen?" "Budget cuts." "Why budget cuts?" "Economy." "Why economy?" "Government." "Why government?" "Voters are stupid."

Done. Root cause identified: democracy is flawed. Time for lunch.

This approach is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

The Real Five Whys: It's About Evidence, Not Opinions

I learned this the hard way during my early consulting days in Brisbane. Big mining company, massive safety incident, everyone pointing fingers. The safety manager was convinced it was because workers weren't following procedures. Classic first-level thinking.

But when we actually applied the Five Whys properly – with data, interviews, and actual investigation – the story changed completely. Yes, procedures weren't followed (Why 1). Because the procedures were written for equipment they'd replaced six months ago (Why 2). Because procurement didn't communicate the change to safety (Why 3). Because there was no formal handover process between departments (Why 4). Because senior management had cut the process improvement role to save costs (Why 5).

Suddenly we're not talking about "lazy workers" anymore. We're talking about systems failures at the executive level.

The key insight here? Each "why" needs to be backed by evidence, not assumptions. Too many managers treat the Five Whys like a brainstorming session where any answer will do. Wrong. Each step should be provable, measurable, and specific.

Where Most Teams Go Off the Rails

After running hundreds of problem-solving workshops across Australia, I've noticed three predictable ways teams stuff this up:

The Blame Game Shortcut: Instead of examining systems, they use each "why" to point fingers at different people or departments. "Why did this fail?" "Because Sarah didn't do her job." "Why didn't Sarah do her job?" "Because she's disorganised." You get the picture.

The Abstract Escape: They keep asking why until they reach some philosophical truth about human nature or market forces. "Why are sales down?" leads inevitably to "Because the economy is uncertain" or "Because customers are more demanding these days." These might be true, but they're not actionable.

The Single-Path Fallacy: They assume there's only one root cause. In reality, most significant problems have multiple contributing factors. The Five Whys should branch out, not drill straight down.

I've seen this technique work brilliantly when done right. Bunnings – and yeah, I'm a fan of their operational excellence – uses systematic root cause analysis throughout their supply chain. They don't just ask why something went wrong; they examine the entire ecosystem around that failure.

The Australian Context: Why We Need This More Than Ever

Look, I'll be blunt. Australian businesses are getting lazier with their problem-solving. We've got this cultural tendency to blame external factors – the economy, regulations, competition from overseas – instead of looking at what we can actually control.

The Five Whys forces you to stay in your lane of influence. You can't fix the global economy, but you can fix your internal processes. You can't control consumer behaviour, but you can control how you respond to it.

This is particularly crucial in our current business environment. With remote work, supply chain disruptions, and rapidly changing customer expectations, the old "blame and move on" approach isn't cutting it anymore. Companies that systematically identify and address root causes are the ones thriving.

Take Atlassian's approach to problem-solving training – they've built their entire culture around asking better questions, not just accepting surface-level explanations. It's no coincidence they've become one of Australia's biggest tech success stories.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Implementation

Here's something that'll ruffle some feathers: most organisations aren't actually ready for the Five Whys. They think they want root cause analysis, but what they really want is someone to blame and a quick fix.

Real Five Whys implementation requires psychological safety. Team members need to feel comfortable saying, "Actually, this process is broken" or "This decision from six months ago created this problem." If your workplace culture punishes honesty or shoots messengers, the technique becomes performative nonsense.

I remember working with a logistics company in Melbourne where the CEO insisted they use the Five Whys for every operational issue. Sounded great in theory. In practice, every analysis somehow concluded that the problem was either "insufficient training" or "employee attitude" – never management decisions, never resource allocation, never strategic choices.

The technique had been weaponised to protect senior leadership from accountability. Predictably, the same problems kept recurring.

Making It Actually Work: The Practical Bits

If you're serious about implementing the Five Whys (and not just ticking a continuous improvement box), here's what actually works:

Start with small, specific problems. Don't try to solve "why sales are declining" on your first go. Start with "why this particular customer complaint occurred" or "why this specific process took longer than expected."

Bring the right people. You need people who actually understand the process, not just managers who think they do. The best Five Whys sessions I've run included frontline staff, middle management, and subject matter experts.

Document everything. Each "why" should be supported by evidence – data, interviews, observations. If you can't prove it, it's speculation.

Accept multiple root causes. Most problems aren't caused by one thing. Your Five Whys might reveal three different contributing factors, and that's perfectly fine.

Focus on systems, not people. If your analysis keeps coming back to individual failures, you're probably not going deep enough. People make mistakes within systems – fix the system.

The Uncomfortable Questions We Avoid

Here's where I'll probably annoy some people: sometimes the Five Whys reveals that management created the problem through poor decisions, inadequate resources, or unrealistic expectations. This is when organisations typically abandon the process or manipulate the results.

I've seen companies discover that their quality issues stem from cost-cutting measures implemented two years ago. Or that their staff turnover problem traces back to compensation decisions made at the executive level. Or that their customer service failures result from systems chosen by the IT department without consulting end users.

These are uncomfortable truths. But they're also the most valuable insights, because they point to changes that will actually make a difference.

What Good Looks Like

The best Five Whys analysis I ever witnessed was at a food processing plant in regional NSW. They'd had a contamination incident – serious stuff that could have shut them down.

Instead of the usual blame game, they systematically worked through the causes: contamination occurred because cleaning protocols weren't followed; protocols weren't followed because the cleaning schedule conflicted with production deadlines; deadlines were unrealistic because planning didn't account for equipment maintenance; maintenance wasn't scheduled properly because they'd reduced the engineering team; the team was reduced because corporate demanded cost savings without understanding operational implications.

The result? They didn't just fix the immediate problem – they redesigned their entire production planning process and restored the engineering team. Eighteen months later, they'd had zero contamination incidents and actually improved their productivity.

That's what proper root cause analysis looks like. It's messy, it's sometimes uncomfortable, and it usually reveals that the real problems are more complex than anyone wanted to admit.

The Bottom Line

The Five Whys isn't a magic bullet, and it's definitely not a five-minute exercise you can knock out in a team meeting. It's a systematic approach to understanding why things really go wrong, not just finding someone to blame.

Done properly, it'll change how your organisation thinks about problems. Done poorly, it becomes another bureaucratic exercise that achieves nothing except ticking boxes.

Most Australian businesses need more systematic problem-solving, not less. We're too quick to accept surface-level explanations and move on to the next crisis. The Five Whys forces you to slow down and actually understand what's happening.

Whether you call it Five Whys, root cause analysis, or systematic problem-solving doesn't matter. What matters is developing the discipline to look beyond symptoms and fix the actual causes.

Because until you do that, you'll keep solving the same problems over and over again. And frankly, most of us have better things to do with our time.