A few weeks ago I wrote about the value of a playbook audit, going through the systems your business runs on and asking whether you'd still build them this way if you were starting today. It's a question I ask founders often, and it tends to surface a lot.
After enough conversations over the years, there’s something worth adding to the equation: “the question only works if you're pointing it at the right thing”.
Founders often want to overhaul the wrong thing
They come in ready to overhaul marketing. It turns out to be the offer underneath it. They come in ready to change how they hire. It turns out to be a leadership problem that's been quietly causing disengagement.
None of these founders were wrong to sense something needed rebuilding. They just aimed the rebuild at the loudest problem instead of the real one.
Why does this happen so often?
The loud problem is the one you can see. Profits are down, so it must be marketing. A client pushed back on a proposal, so it must be pricing. Someone's underperforming, so it must be hiring. These aren't unreasonable guesses, they're just often symptoms wearing a disguise.
A playbook audit that skips diagnosis doesn't fail but it does start to scream success towards rebuilding the wrong thing. You end up with a sharper, more current version of a system that was never actually the problem, which can be more costly than doing nothing, because it appears to be productive progress.
So how do I tell the difference between a symptom and a cause?
Before you rebuild anything, write down what you currently believe is wrong. Then test it with one question: if I fixed this perfectly, would the issue I'm actually feeling go away?
If the honest answer is "probably not," you haven't found the system to audit yet, you've found where the problem happens to be visible. A few common patterns worth checking against:
- Marketing isn’t working - often links back to an unclear offer, not the right channel for your audience or the overall messaging.
- Pricing resistance keeps showing up - often links back to positioning, not the number itself.
- A team member is underperforming - often links back to leadership capability or decision-making, not the hire.
Does this mean I should hold off on the playbook audit?
No, it means the audit needs one extra step at the front of it. Diagnose first, rebuild second. Make sure the solution fits the real problem. The "would I build it this way today" question is still the right one to ask. It just needs to be asked about the actual cause, not whichever system happens to be easiest at the time.
Once you've named the real problem, the audit process is the same as before: pick the system underneath it, and ask honestly whether it still earns its place or is just familiar.
Where to start this week
Pick the system you were already planning to rebuild. Before you touch it, write one sentence: "I think the problem is ___." Then ask what else could explain what you're seeing, if that sentence turned out to be wrong.
That gap - between your first guess and what's actually underneath it is usually where the focus needs to start.
Frequently Asked Questions
What's the difference between a playbook audit and a diagnosis?
A diagnosis identifies what's actually causing a problem in your business. A playbook audit reviews whether the system tied to that problem still fits the business you've become. Diagnosis comes first, without it, an audit risks rebuilding a system that was never the issue.
How do I know if I'm fixing a symptom instead of a cause?
Ask whether fixing the thing you're planning to fix would actually resolve what you're feeling. If the honest answer is "maybe not," the real cause is likely sitting one layer beneath the system you were about to rebuild.
Is it possible to over-diagnose and never actually act?
Yes, diagnosis is meant to take days, not months. The goal isn't certainty, it's confidence that you're rebuilding the right thing before you spend the time and cost of rebuilding it.
