210 880 5777
Albert Einstein one famously 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 a component of decision making that most leaders learn intimately, and that’s the fact that there are no good solutions to ill-defined problems. We’ve all had to endure that knee-jerk reaction to someone’s random goof up, and if we’re honest about it, not once has the response ever been remotely beneficial. Most of us who have served in the military or worked for a large organization are intimately familiar with the trouble these form of off-the-cuff and boiler-plated solutions create in the long run. More often than not, said solution doesn’t even address the problem it was intended solve to very well. So why do we see this sort of response so often, and how do we keep from contributing our own to the list? That’s exactly what I want to spend a little time on today.
Einstein was talking about solving problems as a physicist, but the same process applies to any other form of troubleshooting. After all, problem solving is simply an algebraic formula at it’s most basic form, a logical set of constants and variables ripe for Boolean expression. Solving it is as simple as walking through the logical flow until the only possible answer is reached, but then you’re probably thinking that nothing in life could possibly be that simple and it’s rare that everyone agrees on any given solution. Actually, it is that simple. The hard part is in determining and weighing those constants and variables, and that’s why Einstein’s words were as true of mathematical equations, as they are of any other problem.
Just like in a math test, the very first step in the process is to identify time constraints. Obviously, the urgency of the problem has a lot of impact on the time you dedicate. If the building is on fire, you probably don’t have time to really stop to debate alternative plans of action. More typically mistakes with time management come with less urgent issues. I’ve seen more than one problem go unresolved because the solutions were debated beyond any opportunity to employ them. My rule of thumb is 10 minutes for minor problems, and no more than an hour on big ones unless it’s something that involves multiple parties. Either way, it’s important to lay out a reasonable timeline with all involved, because taking too long also runs the risk of over-thinking and over-complicating things.
Being a mathematical kind of guy, I break my process for solving issues into the percent of overall time I feel I should spend on each component. I typically expect to spend about 40% of that time analyzing the problem to determine what issue really is and whether there’s anything I need to do about it at all. Many problems are the result of chance or things outside your control. Attempting to solve them just creates extra work for everyone, stifles the initiative and creativity of those impacted, and doesn’t really do much to address the actual issue. The vast majority of quickly implemented solutions serve no purpose other than to give the appearance of progress. Rather than resolving the problem they’ve been implemented to address, they create their own. This is the sort of thing that should be avoided at all costs. By harming productivity, these steps are often not good for business, and from a philosophical point of view, it unnecessarily encroaches on personal liberty.
The next step for me is spending about 10% of the allotted time in developing a solution. Solutions should be constructed to have the least possible impact on day-to-day operations, be as simple as possible to implement, and have defined benchmarks for gauging success. It seems like a short amount of time to do so much, but the truth is that all of these things are part of the same process. Most of it you do subconsciously. You’re proposing a solution because you think that solution will make the problem better, so you already know how the solution is supposed to work. You just have to make the extra conscious step to express it. For example, if the problem is a messy bedroom floor and the solution is picking up your clothes, then you’ll know it’s working when you start because your floor will begin to look neater. Success will be achieved when there is no more clothing strewn about the floor. It seems easy and so simple that you might think there’s no real reason to put forth that extra effort, but there really is, which brings us to the third component of solving problems well.
Spend about 25% of your allotted time evaluating your solution and tweaking it, which is where those benchmarks become important. For one thing, we should ask what success should consist of when the problem is resolved. Occasionally, in examining what a successful resolution looks like, we find out our solution doesn’t work as well as expected. If not all the clothing belongs to us in our earlier example, we may pick up all the clothes and not have any place to put half of them. In that case, we’ve solved the problem by creating another, and that’s not a good solution. If nothing else, it defines a point where you can evaluate the solution as a whole and determine whether or not more needs to be done, but often more important is whether or not the implementation needs to be be maintained indefinitely. When the floor is clear, you don’t need to continue trying to pick up clothes. The solution is suspended, or perhaps amended to only be implemented periodically. This is the step most often skipped or ignored in politics, and we’ve all seen the results or laws created to resolve a problem that no longer exists. Defining success would mean some laws never get passed because success isn’t attainable, while others are amended or repealed when no longer effective.
The last phase is the one that differentiates a leader from everyone else. The true leader spends at least 25% of their time on a problem contemplating backup plans for when their initial one goes wrong. Because you’ve spent so much time analyzing the facts of the problem, and developed benchmarks for the progress and eventual success of your proposed solution, you should be already aware of where your plan is likely to go wrong. By identifying those potential hiccups and having already spent time thinking about them, you’re ready to act if and when they do occur. Most people who develop a reputation for being quick on their feet are actually people who start implementing Plan A, but already have Plan B, C, and probably D ready for when things go south. When circumstances do turn, and they inevitably will, having a plan roughed out for handling it saves time and resources. Often, it can help save careers as well, and there’s no one people would prefer to work for than the guy who they know 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 impacts moral in a dramatic way and should be avoided. That said, not all solutions fix the obvious problem. While leaders should always be on the lookout for removing ineffective and unnecessary solutions, everyone else has a pretty important duty as well. Don’t assume the solution you’re implementing is ineffective just because it doesn’t makes sense to you. It’s common for solutions to resolve problems that may not be the one they appear to address on the surface.
An example would be mandatory training. At first glance, it seems ineffective because most people just burn through it quickly without paying attention, and you probably think it’s a waste of time because no one learns anything. That would be true if the training were there to teach you something, but in a lot of cases it’s not. It’s there to legally demonstrate that the company informed you of your responsibilities. By completing the check list or test, you’ve legally demonstrated that you understand those responsibilities or safety concerns. When you understand the point of those tests is documenting your participation, you can see that they are actually quite effective.
So hopefully this has helped you think about how you solve problems and given you something to think about. If nothing else, it may give you a framework for assessing the effectiveness of solutions you see around you, but you should always keep in mind that the solution may not be addressing the obvious. In the end, if we all take a little time to understand the problems better, while we may not always agree on the appropriate response, we can at least have a more productive conversation about it and that’s always a win.
– Jason “Red” Thomas
Copyright 2025 Red Knight, LLC
