Problem-framing series. Blog 1/3: Framing the problem

This blog series is written as additional resource for an academic program where participants undertake an intervention project that falls within the scope of control, does not require additional resources and where cause and effect can be determined (i.e. ordered side of the Cynefin framework). 

The other day in conversation someone mentioned that they are travelling soon. The advice was immediate, without asking questions about purpose, preference or timing – just offering counsel about what to do, where to go, where to stay etc. Similarly on social media, armchair experts respond to posts offering unsolicited opinions and judgments. It has become increasingly easy to offer opinions on everything, and the receiver is indirectly told to shape their problem according to the solutions offered. 

This possibly extends to the workplace, and begs the question – when an issue or problem is presented to you, how often do you consider the issue, how often do you ask clarifying questions, or attempt to explore the issues? Do you believe that you understand and know how a situation is experienced by others; do you feel it is obvious? How often do you provide solutions, interventions or answers without checking if it speaks to what people are experiencing or expressing. 

There is a saying attributed to Gregory Bateson that one cannot change a system without changing oneself. I would argue that the saying implies that we need to open ourselves to change whilst changing the system, thus continuously adjusting our approach not only to how we view the system, but also how we adapt our views and thinking as the system is changing. When intervening in the system, we are not external or outside of the system, we are an ingredient, we are part of it, and thus as the system shifts, we may (will) shift. 

Before intervening though, the problem and possible interventions need to be stated. Future blogs will build on framing especially the words used and the importance of the stories told within an organisation. For now, note that the words used; the way in which the problem is explained or stated and what is believed to be true about the problem will influence how the problem is approached, and what the acceptable interventions may be. 

To state it slightly differently – organisations are socially constructed and influenced by the underlying, sometimes unknown values, beliefs and assumptions of the teams and people within the organisation. This implies that how the problem is stated will be influenced by the values and worldviews of the teams, and in turn how the problem is stated will influence what types of interventions seem possible. Thus, thinking or reflecting a bit on a problem and how it is framed or stated is a very important part of the process. Yet, this is the part that is often neglected. 

This is why I (and others) encourage teams to ‘dance with the problem’ moving in different directions, finding the beat and choosing dance partners. It is a great analogy because the act of dancing is steeped in culture, tradition even geography– think tango versus quickstep, salsa or a waltz. Each dance has different sequences, symbolic values, importance and stories attached to it. So, when you are dancing with a problem, you are thinking about sequences, iterations, values, culture, rituals and how this problem came to be. You practice steps (interventions) and play with the problem. You might also need to ponder whether everyone is dancing to the same tune, doing the same dance or perhaps even whether everyone is on the same dance floor. 

At this point of talking about dancing with problems, and spending time understanding the problem, I am usually interrupted by someone telling me that they are a doer, preferring execution and that the concept of word-crafting or framing and dancing with problems would slow them down. Or that there is too much pressure for execution to spend time ‘dancing with a problem’, they want the shortcut to action and results, and they are finding the conversation a bit too esoteric and out of touch with their reality.

There is two, call it differential diagnosis if you want, for this type of ‘jump into solutions’ behaviour; the uniqueness paradox – where people believe that their situation is unique and therefor others will not understand their ‘unique situation’; and what is called ‘Solutionitis’ where people jump to solutions too quickly, and subsequently interventions doesn’t stick, or they is no buy-in from the team. 

There are obviously many reasons for low adoption rates to change. However, applying Band-Aids or quick fixes to a deep wound is a temporary and unsustainable measure. It is like applying direct pressure to an arterial bleed, where for as long as someone is applying a huge force of direct pressure the bleeding may be contained. But as soon as the pressure is released, there is a risk that the patient will bleed out and die. Sustainable interventions in the system requires a different mindset and leadership approach, than approaches that only provides temporary interventions or quick fixes.  

This bias towards action or execution is simply a framing. How about framing asking questions and developing understanding as action or execution? Such a re-framing of spending time in the problem would allow us to think of it as equally important to intervention or execution. 

Here are prompting questions that I find useful as a starting point to explore (dance with) a problem. The list is not meant to be exhaustive and neither does it need to be followed sequentially (although it flows nicely). 

• What is the problem – write a short statement explaining how you see the problem.
• Why is this a problem? 
• How does this problem manifest or show up?
• Who else might be experiencing this as a problem?
• Would others that are experiencing the problem see it the same way you do? (Stakeholders). Or how do they experience it?
• Whose problem is it? Who is responsible or accountable?
• Does this problem fall under the direct control of the team wanting to make the change?
• Can you draw or visualise the problem?
• Can you draw a boundary around it and identify a scope for the problem? 
• How is the team (or you) contributing to the problem?

It is useful to fluctuate between the questions. For instance, during the initial round add your assumptions regarding stakeholders and their views but then have a chat with the stakeholders and update accordingly. 

The value of seeking alternative perspectives on a situation is especially valuable in multidisciplinary teams where different roles experience a problem (routine or process) differently. Operating theatre start time might be a problem to surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, porters, even administrative staff and the wards. Yet, each role experiences it from a varied angle. Capturing these diverse insights will provide a richer picture than only capturing one perspective. 

In addition, think of different groupings within a discipline – senior consultants, registrars, medical officers, and even interns may all have varied experiences of the same situation. When facing a problem, there is a tendency to weigh the inputs from those that are more senior, and who has a longer tenure as more valuable. Yet, the longer a person has worked in the system, the harder it becomes to see a routine, problem or ‘waste’ clearly as in time the team has adapted ways to work around a problem, or they have accepted the anomaly, and they no longer notice it. The newcomer is experiencing this problem or process for the first time; they’ve not yet been conditioned to the problem. Thus, seeking inputs of newcomers, regardless of their hierarchical position may present novel insights and as such their inputs should be weighed equally as valuable.

Whilst exploring the problem, keep an open mind and accept that it is possible that the presenting problem is not the actual problem.  Compare this to a patient presenting with knee pain to a physiotherapist, even though the pain may be experienced in the knee, the physio might find the underlying cause to be situated somewhere else e.g. the glute. So, the presenting pain may merely be a symptom and just like a bandaging a sore knee when the problem lies in the gluteus will not resolve the underlying issue, in the workplace a quick fix on the wrong symptom will not resolve the deeper issue. 

I’m going to stop here and will continue with a second blog on how to state the question. The main points or takeaways of framing the problem is that:

• Stop focusing on the tools, it is not about the tools, it is about developing a mindset of experimentation and learning. 
• Spend time dancing with the problem and keep an open mind.
• The presenting symptom might not be the real problem.
• Learn to ask, ‘what else’ and collaborate with other roles to explore the problem.

Reframe spending time to understand and make sense of the problem as ways to execute, as it will increase the capacity to respond effectively.