Executive Decision-Making
Albert Einstein once said of problem-solving, "If I had an hour to solve a problem I'd spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions." The quote highlights something most leaders learn intimately: there are no good solutions to ill-defined problems. We've all endured the knee-jerk reaction to someone's random goof-up, and if we're honest, the response is rarely beneficial. Anyone who has served in the military or worked for a large organization knows the trouble these off-the-cuff, boilerplate solutions create in the long run. More often than not, the solution doesn't even address the problem it was meant to solve. So why do we see this response so often, and how do we keep from adding our own to the list?
Einstein was talking about solving problems as a physicist, but the same process applies to any troubleshooting. Problem solving, at its most basic, is an algebraic formula — a logical set of constants and variables ripe for Boolean expression. Solving it is a matter of walking through the logical flow until only one answer remains. You're probably thinking nothing in life is that simple. Actually, it is. The hard part is determining and weighing those constants and variables, and that is why Einstein's words hold as true for any problem as they do for a math equation.
Just like a math test, the first step is to identify time constraints. The urgency of the problem dictates the time you dedicate. If the building is on fire, you don't stop to debate alternatives. More typically, mistakes come with less urgent issues — I've watched more than one problem go unresolved because the solutions were debated past any opportunity to employ them. My rule of thumb is ten minutes for minor problems and no more than an hour on big ones, unless multiple parties are involved. Either way, lay out a reasonable timeline with everyone, because taking too long also risks over-thinking and over-complicating things.
Being a mathematical kind of guy, I break my process into percentages of the overall time. I expect to spend about 40% analyzing the problem — determining what the issue really is and whether anything needs to be done at all. Many problems are the result of chance or things outside your control. Solving them just creates extra work, stifles the initiative and creativity of those impacted, and doesn't address the actual issue. The vast majority of quickly implemented solutions serve no purpose beyond the appearance of progress. Rather than resolving the problem, they create new ones. That is the sort of thing to avoid at all costs.
The next step is about 10% of the time developing a solution. Solutions should have the least possible impact on day-to-day operations, be as simple as possible to implement, and carry defined benchmarks for gauging success. It seems like little time for so much, but these are all part of the same process, most of it done subconsciously. You already know how the solution is supposed to work — you just have to make the conscious step to express it. If the problem is a messy floor and the solution is picking up clothes, you know it's working when the floor starts to look neater, and success is a floor with no clothes on it.
Spend about 25% of your time evaluating and tweaking the solution — this is where benchmarks matter. Ask what success should look like once the problem is resolved. Occasionally, in examining that, we discover the solution doesn't work as well as expected. If not all the clothing is ours, we may pick it all up and have nowhere to put half of it — solving one problem by creating another. If nothing else, defining success gives you a point to evaluate the whole solution and decide whether the implementation needs to be maintained indefinitely. When the floor is clear, you stop picking up clothes. This is the step most often skipped in politics, and we've all seen laws created to solve problems that no longer exist.
The last phase separates a leader from everyone else: spending at least 25% of the time contemplating backup plans for when the first one goes wrong. Because you've analyzed the facts and built benchmarks, you already know where your plan is likely to fail. By thinking those hiccups through in advance, you're ready to act when they occur. Most people known for being quick on their feet are simply running Plan A while already holding Plans B, C, and probably D. When circumstances turn — and they will — a roughed-out plan saves time, resources, and often careers. There's no one people would rather work for than the person who has them covered when things get bad.
Fixing problems that can't or don't need to be fixed isn't just bad for productivity — it dramatically impacts morale and should be avoided. That said, not every solution fixes the obvious problem. Take mandatory training: at first glance it seems ineffective because people burn through it without paying attention. That would be true if the training were there to teach you something — but often it isn't. It's there to legally demonstrate that the company informed you of your responsibilities. Once you understand the point is documenting participation, you can see it is actually quite effective.
Hopefully this gives you a framework for assessing the effectiveness of the solutions you see around you — while remembering that a solution may not be addressing the obvious. In the end, if we all take a little time to understand the problems better, we may not always agree on the response, but we can at least have a more productive conversation about it. And that's always a win.