I intended to work on my thesis and a paper today. But, instead, I’m thinking about expectations and problem-solving. Whether identifying, establishing, or communicating expectations, this has been a passing topic in several chats over the last few months. In the past three years, an expectation I’ve had for one of my team’s was documentation, especially for any procedural and policy development. I’m sure anyone who’s been in that team during my time is quite over the word documentation!
Some people have the adage ‘don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions’ as an expectation. But, this isn’t something I subscribe to as a blanket expectation as it doesn’t align with my values.
In fairness, there are plenty of phrases and corporate jargon that I don’t like because they paint a black-and-white picture and lack nuance. I’m also starting to suspect I don’t like metaphors that involve body parts: “can I pick your brain” and “noses in, fingers out” make me want to hide my brain and face far away!
But the lack of nuance does give me a lot to write on and a chance to explore seemingly disparate ideas, experiences, and theories.
The problem with solutions
I’m not alone in sensing that ‘bring solutions, not problems’ is itself problematic. This line of thinking isn’t novel (as seen in many opinion pieces):
- Why “bring me solutions, not problems” is a terrible corporate phrase
- “Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions” is hurting your team
- Bring me solutions not problems
- Why ‘bring solutions not problems’ doesn’t work
None of this is to say I don’t want solutions or to encourage or empower others to find them. Instead, it’s about constructive approaches to building trust and psychological safety in problem-solving and organisational culture.
I don’t personally adopt this expectation given the risk that
- problems stay hidden, because
- trust in raising a concern or mistake is overshadowed by the insistence on a solution.
A culture of trust and inquiry
So, I’m not a fan of creating problem-solution binaries.
In a post earlier this year, I drew on a paper suggesting that moving beyond such a binary allows complexity that enriches understanding. This is all the while evoking contradiction. I reflected that “complexity feels as though it demands we address notions of trust, transparency, authenticity, and reflexivity in practice.”
The solutions expectation has been described as creating:
“‘a culture of advocacy instead of one of inquiry,’ where each person comes into the situation locked into their way of solving the problem and lobbies hard for that particular solution rather than considering multiple perspectives.” 1
In starting to lead an 18-month organisational change implementation project this year, I drew on aspects of appreciative inquiry for a collaborative and strengths-based approach to change.
Grant and Humphries 2 summarise appreciative inquiry as challenging problem-oriented deficit discourses. It provides a positive process, drawing on possibilities and envisioning what can be.
Appreciative inquiry isn’t a method for problem-solving and isn’t without limitations, especially when it comes to the type of culture or context it’s best used in and any risks for misuse 3
Conscious of this, I wanted to avoid seeing concerns or problems disregarded, especially where power imbalances or hierarchies exist.
In their study, Grant and Humphries describe how “participants may have perceived invalidation and/or non-affirmation of the less positive perspectives they contributed.” 4 That is, the “proactive encouragement of positive discourse … might also have been a process by which participants’ local and grounded knowledge was being disqualified.” 5
They questioned whether by steering the group away from concern and deflecting negative issues shared: “we may have lost valuable opportunities: to learn something unexpected; to demonstrate our commitment to participant directed research; and to deepen trust.” 6
This brought the risk of diminished trust and reduced openness and likelihood of disclosure. Their evaluation of appreciative inquiry recognises that understanding:
“the social, economic and political context of organizational situations, would be one way to demonstrate a willingness to hear about external stressors and thus prepare for a conversation of resistance or transformation that may be difficult or even painful.” 7
Drew and Wallis hypothesise that appreciative inquiry is “more applicable to types of organisational cultures with community rather than individualistic, and cooperative rather than competitive mindsets.” 8
Beyond problem-solution binaries
It’s those community and cooperative aspects that I appreciate and lean into. And yes, that includes problems brought forward.
Problems are opportunities for coaching, collaboration, and learning, especially when solutions aren’t apparent or forthcoming.
I’ve found that observing how others approach problem-solving, coach through a problem, or facilitate this collectively is a valuable learning experience. It requires:
- Problem sharing, not shaming,
- Concerns not being framed entirely as an individual burden, and
- Trust, so that (where appropriate) inquiry can happen together.
Problems and solutions still exist in this, but the process between is not a linear binary. Surfacing problems without solutions isn’t framed as a deficit, and solo solutions to a problem aren’t an inherent good. Nuances between problems and solutions can allow for a collaborative process that builds trust while providing a foundation to learn and solve.
- (Nawaz, 2017) ↩︎
- (Grant and Humphries, 2006, p. 403) ↩︎
- (Drew & Wallis, 2014, p 19). ↩︎
- (2006., pp. 412-413) ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- Ibid., p. 414. ↩︎
- (2014, p. 21) ↩︎