Problem Solving Check-Up

Do people reliably select the right problems on which to work?

Or do they focus on the easy ones? the politically acceptable ones? the ones upper management will acknowledge?

Is there a good balance of attending to short-term operational problems while still addressing long-term strategic problems?

Or do people push off long-term issues and chase after the squeakiest wheel?

Is there a strong consensus across organizational levels on the problems that need to be solved?

Or would executives, customers, investors, and staff all name different issues?

Is the identification of problems or issues stable?

Or does it fluctuate frequently due to political pressures, the customer who yells the loudest, shifting financials, or personal agendas?

Is everyone clear on the long-term consequences of not solving key organizational problems?

Or are people tolerant of problems just because the immediate consequences are livable?

Do problems stay solved?

Or do they reappear with agonizing regularity?

Is identifying a problem considered a positive contribution to the organization?

Or does it end up labeling someone as a 'troublemaker', 'not a team player', or 'a weak manager'?

Weak answers to these questions all point to a poor process for naming problems. The consequence is that your organization may waste time working on the wrong problems, or lose momentum and waste resources shifting its attention back and forth between competing problems.

Sound naming is most often compromised by an almost knee-jerk focus on solutions without an explicit conversation about which problems to take on.

Insistence on carefully characterizing problems first, and then justifying their choice for special attention will help reinforce healthy problem naming.

Is there a good balance of bounding the problem enough to allow for real improvement, and putting it in enough context that solutions are not too narrow or too short-term?

Or are problems defined in narrow, convenient ways that preclude finding the root causes? Are problems automatically located within a functional unit?

Do problems typically give way to time and talent?

Or do you have a long list of problems that are strangely resistant to resolution?

Are there clear criteria for a solution stated at the beginning?

Or does it take several "false starts" before it is clear what executives want?

Do problem solving efforts generally succeed within schedule and within budget?

Or do they more frequently stumble or fall short because of inadequate resources? Understaffing? Wrong staffing?

Do initial investigations lead to adjustments in how problems are understood or the resources made available?

Or do executives stick to their initial understandings regardless of new information?

Weak answers to these questions all point to shortcomings in how problems are framed for the organization. Even if you are working on the right problems, the charter to the organization has to match the task. And new discoveries need to revise that charter.

It is an executive and managerial discipline to task problems well. It requires constraint, and knowing when to back away. See the details on tasking for more examples.

Are people conscious about selecting or designing a problem solving process?

Or do they just launch into the issues without no road map?

Once enjoined, do people correctly analyze or parse out the problem?

Or is their analysis shallow? politically expedient? self serving?

Are people candid and creative in exploring the relevant issues?

Or is the discussion guarded? risk averse? mundane?

Are people careful to distinguish between superficial symptoms vs. underlying causes?

Or do you see lots of examples of the proverbial "band-aids on a cancer"?

Do people generally feel confident that a problem is well understood before implementing solutions?

Or do they have nagging doubts that something critical is being missed?

Are solutions generated which serve the company overall?

Or do functional loyalties, regional interests, or personal agendas dominate the solution?

Are the solutions generated well matched to the nature of the problem?

Or are solutions so idealistic, inhumane, or bureaucratic that implementation is guaranteed to fail?

Are solutions cost effective?

Or are solutions sometimes more expensive than the original problem?

These questions all reflect the organizational prowess in taming problems, that is, actually working through the details and discovering a solution.

The critical missing piece may be a shared mind set and common vocabulary for talking about problems. Differences of opinion about how to proceed are often an unconscious obstacle to efficient problem solving.

Is your organizational able to manage a high volume of problems?  or a particularly complex mix of problems?

Or is the organization commonly overwhelmed by the problems to be faced? Do people frequently do "just a little" on too many problems to make any real difference?

Do people know when to add new capacity vs. repair existing capacity?

Or do people routinely repair something only to push for replacing it a short time later?

Do people show a generally increasing fluency in problem solving?

Or does the organization slide too easily back into "fire fighting"?

Can problems be raised without opening "Pandora's Box"?

Or does every problem seem to point to so many other problems that it seems best to just "leave worse enough alone"?

These questions reflect the overall capacity and capability of the organization in problem solving. Unfortunately not all skills ripen with experience; some just seem to get worse without constant discipline. Problem solving is one of those skills that can erode with experience as easily as it is refined.

The best strategy is to make problem solving a topic of discussion. Push for common understandings, vocabulary, and reference points. Call for a discipline of problem solving rather than just throwing smart people together and trusting their good will to produce a high quality outcome.