Inventing Better Problems

Abstract

Einstein said something profound about solving problems: “The significant problems we face today cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.” His thought contains two powerful ideas: that our thinking actually creates problems and that solutions entail different levels of thought.

Having spent many years leading organizations, I am convinced that we tend to see problems as external events. We stroll peacefully down a country lane, perhaps whistling a happy tune, and suddenly problems start shooting at us like bullets or, in the case of significant problems, missiles. Think back to your last adventure with a flat tire. You probably did not experience the incident as a problem created by your own thoughts. Or remember the last time you sat at your computer staring at the blue screen of death. Did you wonder how you had created this problem yourself? Unlikely. The same can be said generally of health, business, political and financial problems. To borrow a phrase from Hamlet, we often see our most pressing difficulties as “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” We are victims of an unfair assault, not perpetrators of self-inflicted wounds.

Do problems often call forth our deeper levels of thinking? Experience convinces me that serious problems forcefully dictate a reflexive level of thinking required for short-term solutions. In real (as opposed to theoretical or conjectural) life, problems seem to have steel jaws, and we feel caught between their teeth. As we jack up the car, or search for system discs while pounding furiously on an unresponsive keyboard, we feel quite trapped. Exploding deficits demand sharp cuts, poverty begs for support, fallen power lines pray for resurrection. Too often, problems behave like vengeful totalitarian dictators. They will have their say and their way, no matter our wishes. This is the gut-level experience of problems within organizations, especially inside complex systems, true from the nuclear family to the major corporation or government agency.

Over the past 30 years, enlightened movements in learning organization theory (Society for Organizational Learning n.d.) and appreciative inquiry (Appreciative Inquiry Commons n.d.) have suggested that leaders think critically about problem-solving processes, calling for alternatives. As if turning our instruments back upon themselves, we have approached problems with problem-solving itself. The list of complaints against problem-solving practice is substantial and well-conceived. Problem-solving seems to focus unnecessarily on deficits and needs. It tends to look backwards in time, seeking causal factors and agents. It becomes focused on blame, accountability and punishment even when these play little or no role in generating solutions. Problem-solving can be overly reactive and limited by immediate circumstances. After all, knowing that you ran over a nail does not fix your tire. Finding the evil computer genius whose malevolent virus destroyed your operating system will not make it work again. Knowing that you ate too many frosted donuts will not unblock your arteries. This is familiar ground for practitioners of learning organization theory. Problem-solving is not the same as creating.