Discovery & diagnosis · Essay 016
Listen for the workaround
The Accidental Salesman Editorial Desk · 2 min read · Published 15 October 2026

People often describe what is wrong by describing what they have learned to do around it. A spreadsheet maintained after hours, a weekly reconciliation call or a manager who personally approves every exception can reveal more than a formal problem statement.
A workaround is evidence of effort, not automatically evidence of a market opportunity. It may be cheap, dependable and well understood. Replacing it can create more disruption than benefit. The adviser needs to understand why it exists and what it protects.
Ask who maintains the workaround, what happens when they are absent and which failures it prevents. An apparently inefficient manual step may be compensating for poor data, unclear authority or an unreliable upstream system. Automating the step without fixing that context can remove a useful safeguard.
For example, a sales manager may review every proposal because service commitments are inconsistent. A proposal tool could accelerate the inconsistency. A better first intervention might be clear scope boundaries and approval rules for exceptions.
This is also a positioning opportunity. Instead of describing a broad transformation, explain the specific burden you can remove while preserving the protection the workaround provides. That makes the value easier to understand.
Treat the people maintaining the workaround with respect. They often possess the most useful knowledge in the process. A sales story that makes them look foolish may win attention from a sponsor while losing cooperation from the people needed for delivery.
Put it to work
A practical next step
Draw the workaround as it operates today, including hidden checks and handoffs. Ask its owner what must remain true if it disappears. Use those conditions to evaluate any proposed replacement.
Proposed practice, not a completed experiment. Illustrations are not client testimony.
Sources & limits
This essay is editorial interpretation from the supplied manuscript, not an empirical research report. No external study is cited for its recommendations.
Source: The work of winning trust, editorial review edition, 15 October 2026, p. 25. No publication history is inferred from its sequence dates.