Vistage Issue Processing Supercharger

The 3-Sentence Frame

Before presenting to the group, coach the member:

1. The Situation: "Here's what's happening..." (facts, not interpretation)
2. The Tension: "The reason this is hard is..." (what makes it a dilemma, not just a task)
3. The Decision: "The choice I need to make is..." (specific options or question)

Chair coaching script (private, before they present): "Before you share this, help me understand it in three sentences. First — just the facts. What's the situation? Good. Now — why is this hard? Not logistically hard, but what makes it a real dilemma? And finally — what's the actual decision? Can you phrase it as a choice between two or three specific options?"

If they can't articulate the decision, that's diagnostic. The first job of the group is to help them find the real question.

What the Chair tells the group: "[Name] has an issue. They have 3 minutes. Your job: listen. Not just to what they're saying — listen for what they might NOT be saying. No questions yet."

What to Watch For

Emotional flooding: Voice cracking, visible distress, rapid speech. Do NOT push forward with standard processing. Shift to a holding space protocol — emotion first, logic later.

The validation seeker: "It sounds like you've already decided. Is that true? If so, what do you actually need from us — validation, or a stress test?"

The vague issue: "I'm hearing a big topic. Can you narrow it to the ONE decision that would unlock the most progress?"

The proxy issue: Sometimes the issue they bring is the one they're comfortable sharing, not the real one. Especially common with: people decisions (they know they need to fire someone but present a "process" problem), family/business overlap (the real tension is with a spouse or family member in the business), and personal capacity (they're burned out but present a "strategy" problem). The Chair who senses this should note it for the one-to-one, not force it in public.

STEP 2: Clarify the Issue (Enhanced)

The Failure Modes

• Questions are too shallow ("How many employees do you have?")
• Questions are actually advice in disguise ("Have you considered firing him?")
• Same 2-3 people ask all the questions
• The group accepts the presenter's framing without testing it
• Critical context never surfaces because nobody asks about it

The Clarification Protocol

Rule 1: Questions only. Ruthless enforcement. The moment someone says "Have you thought about..." or "You should..." the Chair intervenes.

Chair script: "For the next 8 minutes, we're in questions-only mode. No advice, no 'have you considered,' no suggestions dressed as questions. Our job is to understand [Name]'s situation so well we could explain it to someone outside this room. If I hear advice, I'm redirecting. This discipline matters."

Rule 2: Layer the questions. Most groups stay at Layer 1 and wonder why the processing feels shallow.

Layer 1 — Context (table stakes, get these out of the way fast):

• "What have you already tried?"
• "When did this start?"
• "Who else is affected?"
• "What's the timeline?"

Layer 2 — Assumptions (this is where processing gets real):

• "What are you assuming about [person]'s motivation?"
• "What evidence do you have that [belief] is actually true?"
• "Is there another way to interpret what happened?"
• "What would change if that assumption were wrong?"

Layer 3 — Patterns (this separates good processing from great):

• "Has this happened before?"
• "Is this a person problem or a system problem?"
• "If you fix this specific instance, will it come back in 3 months?"
• "What's the pattern underneath this?"

Layer 4 — Stakes (forces the presenter to confront what's really at risk):

• "What happens if you do nothing for 90 days?"
• "What's the cost — in dollars, in people, in your own energy — of getting this wrong?"
• "What are you afraid of?"
• "What's the conversation you're avoiding?"

Practitioner insight: Layer 4 is where the magic happens, but most groups never get there because they exhaust the time on Layer 1. The Chair's job is to move the group through the layers quickly. If someone asks a Layer 1 question after 5 minutes of clarification, redirect: "We've got good context. Let's go deeper — what assumptions might [Presenter] be making?"

Rule 3: Distribute airtime. Track who's asking questions. If the same 3 people are dominating: "We've heard great questions from this side. [Name], [Name] — what are you curious about?"

Rule 4: The reframe check. Critical moment — after clarification, before root cause:

"[Name], having heard all these questions, has the issue shifted? Is it still what you thought, or has the real question changed?"

About 30% of the time, the real issue surfaces here. When it does, it's the single most valuable moment in the entire processing session.

STEP 3: Identify Root Cause (Enhanced)

The Failure Modes

• Group jumps to solutions without diagnosing (the most common failure in peer groups)
• Root cause is assumed based on the presenter's frame
• Multiple causes identified but none prioritized
• Systemic issues treated as one-time events

Root Cause Toolkit — Pick One Per Issue

Tool 1: The 5 Whys (for linear problems with a clear cause chain)

When to use: "We missed revenue targets" / "We lost the customer" / "The project failed"

Process: State the problem. Ask "Why?" Five times. Each answer becomes the subject of the next "Why?"

Example:

• Revenue missed by 15%. Why? → Pipeline was thin.
• Why was pipeline thin? → Outbound activity dropped 40%.
• Why? → Sales team was doing implementation work.
• Why? → Lost 2 implementation people and didn't replace them.
• Why? → Hiring process takes 4 months.

Root cause: Hiring infrastructure, not sales effort. Completely different solution.

The Chair's job: keep asking "Why?" when the group wants to stop at level 2 or 3. The real insight is usually at level 4 or 5.

Tool 2: The Iceberg Model (for recurring problems — the issue keeps coming back)

When to use: "This keeps happening" / "We solved this last quarter but it's back" / "I feel like I'm always dealing with this"

Four levels:

• Events (visible): What happened this time?
• Patterns (below surface): What's the recurring trend?
• Structures (deep): What systems, incentives, or processes produce this pattern?
• Mental Models (deepest): What beliefs or assumptions maintain those structures?

Chair facilitates down the iceberg: "Okay, [Name] described the event. Is this a pattern — has something like this happened before?" → "If it keeps happening, what's the system that's producing it?" → "What belief or assumption is holding that system in place?"

Practitioner insight: The mental model layer is where transformation happens. When a CEO realizes "I keep hiring people who won't challenge me because I believe disagreement is disloyalty" — THAT's a breakthrough. But you can't force someone there. You can only create the conditions.

Tool 3: The Fishbone (for complex, multi-causal problems)

When to use: Multiple factors contributing, group needs to map them all.

Draw categories on the board: People, Process, Strategy, Resources, External. Brainstorm causes in each. Then prioritize: "Which ONE of these, if addressed, would have the biggest impact?"

Tool 4: The Cynefin Quick-Sort (when the group is arguing because they disagree on approach)

Four domains:

• Clear: Cause-effect obvious. Best practice exists. Just do it.
• Complicated: Cause-effect exists but needs expertise. Analyze, then act.
• Complex: Cause-effect only visible in retrospect. Run safe experiments.
• Chaotic: No cause-effect. Act NOW to stabilize, then assess.

Chair: "Before we go further — is this a clear problem with a known solution? A complicated one needing analysis? A complex one where we need to experiment? Or chaos where we need to act first?" The answer determines the approach. Applying "best practice" to a complex problem is a common and expensive mistake.

The Diagnosis Statement

After root cause analysis, force clarity:

"Based on everything we've uncovered, state the root cause in one sentence."

This prevents the group from solution-generating against a symptom. If the presenter can't state it in one sentence, the diagnosis isn't done.

STEP 4: Generate Solutions (Enhanced)

The Failure Modes

• Advice spray (everyone shares war stories and "you should" suggestions)
• Groupthink (first idea adopted without alternatives)
• Loudest voice wins
• Solutions don't match the root cause
• Presenter overwhelmed by 15 suggestions
• Options aren't evaluated against criteria

Solution Generation — Three Protocols

Protocol A: Hypotheses (Default — Use This Most)

Chair: "We've identified the root cause. Now I want hypotheses, not advice. A hypothesis sounds like: 'One hypothesis is that if you [action], it would address [root cause] because [reasoning].' This keeps us in inquiry mode."

Go around. One hypothesis per person. Chair captures on whiteboard. Presenter picks 2-3 that resonate. Group pressure-tests: "What could go wrong?" / "What does this assume?" / "Is this reversible?"

Why this works: It prevents the "I had a similar situation and here's what I did" war-story pattern that eats 20 minutes and produces no decisions.

Protocol B: Silent Generation → Vote → Discuss (Use when dominance is an issue)

1. Everyone writes ONE option on a card (2 min, silent)
2. Collect cards, read aloud without attribution
3. Vote: which 2-3 are most promising?
4. Discuss only the top-voted options
5. Presenter chooses

Why this works: Equalizes airtime completely. The quiet member's idea gets the same weight as the CEO with the $200M company.

Protocol C: Pre-Mortem (Use when the presenter is leaning toward a specific option)

"[Name] is leaning toward [option]. Let's test it. It's 12 months from now and this decision failed. Why? Everyone write 2-3 failure scenarios. Then we'll share."

Why this works: Surfaces risks without the social cost of directly saying "I think you're wrong." People will write things they'd never say out loud.

Key Chair Moves During Solutions

• War story emerging: "That's a useful parallel. What's the ONE takeaway [Name] should consider?"
• Groupthink forming: "I'm hearing a lot of agreement. Who sees this differently? What are we missing?"
• Presenter overwhelmed: "Let's pause. [Name], of everything you've heard, what resonates? What can you discard?"
• Solution doesn't match root cause: "Wait — our root cause was [X]. Does this solution address THAT, or are we solving a different problem?"

STEP 5: Commit to Action (Enhanced)

The Failure Modes

• Vague commitment ("I'll work on it")
• No timeline ("soon")
• No metric ("I'll know when it's better")
• No accountability partner
• No first irreversible step
• Too many commitments (dilution)
• Low energy at end (commitment as afterthought)

The 5-Part Commitment Protocol

Chair: "[Name], you've heard the diagnosis and the hypotheses. Decision time. Complete these five sentences:"

1. "I will..." [Specific action — verb + noun. Not "think about" or "explore"]
2. "By..." [Exact date. Not "soon" or "end of quarter"]
3. "I'll know it worked when..." [Observable outcome — something you could photograph or measure]
4. "My first step in the next 48 hours is..." [Irreversible action that commits them]
5. "[Name] will hold me accountable." [They choose someone in the room]

The Chair Enforces Specificity

• "That's a category, not an action. What specifically?"
• "'Soon' isn't a date. When exactly?"
• "How will we know if this worked? What would we see?"
• "'I'll think about it' isn't a commitment. What would you need to know to decide right now? Can the group help?"

The Energy Check

After the commitment: "On 1-10, how committed are you?"

If less than 8: "What would need to change to make it higher?"

This surfaces hidden resistance. A "6" usually means "I said this because the group was watching but I probably won't do it." That's worth 2 more minutes of honest conversation.

The Accountability Partner's Job

Week 2: "Did you take your first step?" Week 4: "Are you on track?" Next meeting: "Did you do it? What happened?"

If red flags (avoidance, vagueness, reschedules) → tell the Chair.

Advanced Techniques

When the Real Issue Isn't the Stated Issue

Happens 30-40% of the time. Signs: the issue feels vague, the presenter seems disconnected, questions keep circling, energy is flat.

Chair: "[Name], I want to check something. Is this the thing that's actually keeping you up at night? Or is there something underneath it that's harder to say?"

Let the silence work. If they go deeper, follow it. If not, respect it — but address it in the one-to-one.

When the Issue Is Actually a Person

Many issues boil down to: "Someone isn't performing and I haven't dealt with it." The issue is a symptom. The people decision is the root cause.

Chair: "I'm going to be direct. It sounds like the core issue isn't [stated topic] — it's a people decision you're avoiding. Am I wrong?"

If right: "Who specifically? How long? What have you tried? What's stopping you? What's the cost of another 90 days of inaction?"

When Two Members Have Conflicting Advice

This is actually the most valuable moment — divergent perspectives reveal real trade-offs.

Chair: "[Name A] and [Name B] see this differently. That's gold. [Name A], what's your core concern? [Name B], what's yours? [Presenter], the question isn't who's right — it's which trade-off you're willing to make."

When the Pattern Keeps Repeating

Same member, same type of issue, month after month (avoiding hard conversations, cash crises, talent problems).

Chair: "[Name], I want to observe something with care. Over the last several months, you've brought issues about [pattern]. Each time you committed to [type of action] and the result was [what happened]. I think we might be solving the symptom each month without addressing what's driving this. Can we go there?"

This requires high trust. Only attempt in established or advanced groups. And when you say "with care," mean it — this is a gift, not an attack.

When a Member Is Seeking Permission

Sometimes a CEO knows exactly what to do but needs the group to say "yes, do it." They're not confused — they're scared. The group's job isn't to generate alternatives. It's to say: "You know what to do. You have our support. Go do it."

Chair: "[Name], I'm hearing clarity in your voice, not confusion. I think you know what you need to do. Am I right?" If yes: "Then here's what the group can give you — permission and support. You don't need our advice. You need us to say: go do the hard thing. We've got your back."

Measuring Issue Processing Quality

If follow-through stays below 60% for two months, the issue isn't the processing — it's the accountability system. Fix the follow-up, not the exercise.

Quick Reference — Keep This Visible During Processing

PRESENT: Coach the 3-Sentence Frame (Situation, Tension, Decision) CLARIFY: Questions only. Layer: Context → Assumptions → Patterns → Stakes ROOT CAUSE: Pick one: 5 Whys (linear) | Iceberg (recurring) | Fishbone (complex) | Cynefin (to match approach) SOLUTIONS: Hypotheses, not advice. "One possibility is..." COMMIT: 5-Part Protocol: I will / By when / Success metric / First step / Partner IF STUCK: "Is this the real issue?" — then let the silence work. IF EMOTIONAL: Slow down. Emotion first, logic later. IF PATTERN: Name it with care. "I'm noticing over several months..." IF SEEKING PERMISSION: "You know what to do. Go do it. We've got your back."