In a recent LinkedIn post, Stephanie Hills, Ph.D. discusses how structured problem-solving helped her respond to a customer crisis and argues that clear thinking under pressure is a skill leaders can strengthen. This article covers Hills’s account and analysis; it is journalistic coverage of her post, not an article written by her.
Hills recounts taking over a team after a $50 million customer had decided to end its relationship with the company. Quality problems, delivery delays and damaged trust left only days to develop a response. As she writes:
“A $50M customer had already decided to fire us.”
A compressed timeline for recovery
According to Hills, the response unfolded over five days. She met with global engineering on Thursday to map what was going wrong, consulted engineering leadership the next day, built a plan over the weekend and presented it to executives on Sunday night. On Monday, she flew to Canada to meet the customer.
Hills says the team resolved the quality issues, addressed delays and retained the account. She attributes the outcome not to individual brilliance, but to disciplined thinking when time was short. Her account frames crisis leadership as a practical process: bring the right groups together, clarify the problems, build a response and engage the customer.
Frameworks to bring clarity to complexity
Hills’s broader point is that experienced problem solvers do not have to rely on instinct alone. She lists seven frameworks, each suited to a different kind of challenge:
- OODA Loop: supports rapid decisions in fast-changing situations.
- DMAIC: uses data to identify and improve operational processes.
- Root Cause Analysis: uses the “5 Whys” to investigate recurring failures.
- Pre-Mortem Analysis: anticipates how a project could fail so teams can address risks early.
- First Principles Thinking: rebuilds an approach from fundamental facts when conventional methods fall short.
- Six Thinking Hats: helps teams consider facts, emotions, risks and creative options in parallel.
- Decision Tree Analysis: maps choices and possible outcomes when decisions involve uncertainty.
As Hills presents them, these tools are not a single prescribed sequence. They offer different ways to organize thinking, depending on whether a leader faces a process problem, a recurring breakdown, a new initiative or a high-stakes choice.
Judgment remains a leadership responsibility
Hills connects structured problem-solving to the faster pace of business and the spread of AI. In her view, technology makes sound judgment more important because leaders still need to ask useful questions, challenge assumptions and make the final call. She summarizes that principle directly:
“Technology doesn’t replace sound judgment. It makes sound judgment more important.”
The post’s central argument is that leaders cannot remove uncertainty, but they can improve how they respond to it. Hills’s customer story gives that argument a concrete setting: a short deadline, a cross-functional effort and a plan aimed at repairing both operational performance and trust.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Stephanie Hills, Ph.D. on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on November 3, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →