The Problem With “Problem Solving” in Most Organizations

Leaders often hear two pieces of advice that sound contradictory:

“If you define the problem correctly, you almost have the solution.” — Steve Jobs

“Focus on the solution, not the problem.” — Jim Rohn

Both are right.

And both are incomplete on their own.

High-performing teams don’t choose between problem and solution. They move through a disciplined sequence:

Understand → Decide → Execute

Miss the first step and you solve the wrong problem.

Overstay in the first step and nothing gets solved.

1. Seek understanding (before seeking agreement)

• Early problem discussions often go wrong in predictable ways:
• People defend their function
• Blame replaces ownership
• Symptoms get treated as causes
• The loudest voice defines reality

This is why problem definition is not a soft skill—it’s a technical leadership skill.

At the outset, depth matters more than speed:

Explore the system, not just the incident

• Separate symptoms from root constraints
• Invite conflicting interpretations
• Look for incentives, bottlenecks, and feedback loops
• Pressure-test assumptions

The goal is not consensus.

The goal is shared clarity.

Clarity reduces emotional heat, prevents scapegoating, and dramatically improves the quality of every decision that follows.

But clarity has diminishing returns.

Which brings us to the second discipline.

2. Make a plan at ~70% certainty

There is a well-established principle in decision science and military leadership:

Below ~40% information, you’re guessing.

Above ~70%, you’re delaying.

Leadership happens in between.

Colin Powell formalized this as the 40–70 Rule: decide when you understand enough to act competently, but early enough to adapt.

Why this works:

• Information quality drops after the major variables are known
• Delay compounds opportunity cost
• Complex systems change while you analyze them
• Real learning accelerates only after action begins

This is especially true for reversible decisions:

• Strategy experiments
• Marketing campaigns
• Team structures
• Workshop design
• Product positioning
• Process changes

Waiting for certainty feels responsible.

In practice, it is often disguised risk-avoidance.

A better standard:

• You understand the main variables
• You see the dominant risks
• You can explain your logic clearly
• You have a plausible fallback
• Additional research will not change the direction—only the confidence

That is sufficient to plan and move.

3. Stay focused during execution

Once a plan exists, the leadership challenge changes.

Now the danger is not ignorance—it’s distraction.

Common failure modes:

• Re-litigating the decision
• Chasing new problems instead of solving the chosen one
• Letting friction turn into excuses
• Allowing blame to replace learning
• Confusing adjustment with abandonment

Effective teams do something subtler:

They adapt tactics while protecting intent.

They treat obstacles as data, not verdicts.

They refine execution without dissolving commitment.

Progress requires a narrow beam of attention:

• Clear metrics
• Regular review
• Fast feedback
• Ownership over defensiveness

Focus is not stubbornness.

It is disciplined follow-through.

The sequence that scales

Real problem-solving is not a single act. It is a system:

• Problem identification – rigorous thinking
• Problem-solving – disciplined choice
• Problem resolution – sustained execution

Or more simply:

Think → Choose → Act

Most organizations are strong at one of these.

High-performing organizations are competent at all three.

Why this matters for teams

Teams don’t become “problem solvers” through motivation.

• They become problem solvers through:
• Clear thinking standards
• Explicit decision thresholds
• Psychological safety during diagnosis
• Bias toward action
• Accountability during execution

That is a leadership architecture, not a personality trait.

Invitation

• If you want a workplace where:
• Problems are defined instead of politicized
• Decisions are timely instead of perfect
• Execution is steady instead of reactive

I’m happy to have a conversation.