BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

The Five Pitfalls Of Problem-Solving - And How To Avoid Them

Following
POST WRITTEN BY
Bernard Garrette, Olivier Sibony and Corey Phelps
This article is more than 5 years old.

Shutterstock

Of the many skills leaders need to be effective, research consistently shows that complex problem solving is paramount. For most of us, however, solving difficult problems and selling the solutions doesn’t come naturally since we haven’t been taught how to do it well. And when we try, obstacles abound.

Through our research, teaching and consulting, we’ve identified five pitfalls that frequently trip up business leaders when they tackle complex problems. If we want to be better leaders, we must understand these pitfalls and how to overcome them.

Pitfall 1: Flawed problem definition

When digitalization swept through the music industry, record companies reacted by fighting a court battle against illegal file sharing. They won, forcing Napster to unplug in 2001. But it was a pyrrhic victory. By 2010, two-thirds of their revenues had evaporated.

At the heart of this disaster was the way music industry executives viewed file sharing. To them, it was simple piracy, and they stated the problem accordingly: “How do we stop this piracy?”

A different and more productive problem statement would have been: “How can we make money in a world of digital music?” One company – Apple – asked this question, laying the groundwork for the phenomenally successful iPod, iPhone and iTunes store.

The contrast between the record companies and Apple illustrates the importance of stating the right problem. A flawed problem definition, which often happens when you think you recognize a situation from past experience, puts you on a glide path to irrelevant solutions.

A practical way to state a problem is to use the TOSCA checklist by answering the following questions:

  • Trouble: What indicates the current situation is not the desired one?
  • Owner: Who is responsible for its resolution?
  • Success: What will success look like and when?
  • Constraints: What are the binding constraints on developing a solution?
  • Actors: Who are the relevant stakeholders?

This checklist helps you understand the various facets of the problem. You can then use your answers to develop the core question that will guide your solution-development efforts.

Pitfall 2: Solution confirmation

In October 2005, Muhammad Yunus, Nobel laureate and father of microfinance, met with Franck Riboud, CEO of Danone. With a handshake, they agreed to team up to fight childhood malnutrition in Bangladesh, one of the world’s poorest countries.

With virtually no investigation or experimentation, Danone quickly developed a nutrition-packed yogurt called Shokti Doi (energy yogurt) and the business model for it as the solution to the problem. The Grameen Danone Foods Limited (GDFL) joint venture began production in February 2007.

GDFL’s performance, however, didn’t live up to the founders’ expectations.  Despite several re-organization efforts, by 2015 GDFL was producing at only two-thirds capacity. Supermarkets in middle-class urban areas accounted for the vast majority of sales, while the impact on poor communities was marginal.

GDFL had fallen prey to the solution confirmation pitfall. Rather than start by understanding the problem —child malnutrition— to find relevant solutions, the two organizations quickly zeroed in on a candidate solution they assumed would work because it combined Danone’s yogurt production expertise with Grameen’s marketing clout. A desire to move quickly coupled with strong executive support deterred anyone from challenging the hypotheses that underpinned the solution.

To avoid this pitfall, you must structure the problem. Start with the core question you are attempting to answer from problem statement. Break this core question down into as many non-overlapping sub-questions (elementary issues) as possible. You can then investigate them one by one in search for adequate solutions.

Pitfall 3: Wrong framework

Through a consulting project, we came to know Lisa, the HR Director at a call center company. Because of high employee turnover, recruiting and training costs had spiraled out of control. Lisa was considering contracting with an HR analytics firm that promised, thanks to machine-learning algorithms, to identify the personality traits associated with longer employee tenure and to select applicants with those characteristics. The firm had impressive references from clients who it helped achieve significant increases in retention rates.

While Lisa wondered whether she should become a client, something troubled her. After some reflection, she put her finger on it. The analytics firm was forcing her to think of the problem in a specific way, to use a specific lens. While it offered a framework to address the retention issue, this framework used an unstated, disputable assumption – that retention is linked to employee personality.

To test this assumption, Lisa conducted some exit interviews and discovered employees were leaving because of low pay, poor working conditions, and brutal management. Employees who stayed did so largely because they couldn’t find jobs elsewhere.

Lisa realized that if the analytics firm’s predictive model worked as advertised, it would identify the personality traits of employees that other employers wouldn’t hire and select for those traits in applicants! While this could result in lower turnover, it may also lead to lower job performance—a critical factor that hadn’t been part of the discussion.

This story highlights the third pitfall of problem solving: using the wrong framework. Frameworks tell us what to pay attention to in a particular situation; but by suggesting what we should attend to, they also tell us what to ignore. Our choice of frameworks can blind us to important aspects of a problem, leading us to develop ineffective solutions.

Be careful not to blindly apply frameworks to a problem simply because you’re familiar with them. When using frameworks to structure a problem, make sure their assumptions fit your problem.

Pitfall 4: Narrow framing

In June 2011, American department store chain J.C. Penney announced that Ron Johnson, head of Apple’s wildly successful retail stores, would become Penney’s new CEO. The stock market reacted by bidding up Penney’s share price 17.5%. Johnson’s mission was to turn around the ailing retailer, which had seen its sales, profits and stock price steadily erode.

Johnson quickly pursued changes that were a dramatic departure from what Penney’s customers expected from the century-old retailer. He eliminated sales promotions and replaced them with a simple, everyday low-pricing approach. He transformed Penney’s from a crowded and cluttered department store selling many of its own labels organized by product type to a collection of 100 boutiques spaciously organized by well-known brands. Store employees were encouraged to dress in their own style and outfitted with hand-held checkout devices. The company communicated these changes as part of a major rebranding effort.

The return on this investment of hundreds of millions of dollars became clear when Penney’s announced its 2012 results. They were awful. Same-store sales fell 25% from the previous year and Penney’s recorded a $1 billion loss. By April 2013 Johnson was out as CEO, only 18 months after he started.

Johnson’s misfortune illustrates the narrow framing pitfall. When we tackle a complex problem that we superficially understand, it’s tempting to frame it narrowly to make it look like one we’ve worked on before. We can then reason by analogy to quickly identify a solution instead of investing in thoroughly understanding the problem.

Johnson ignored his superficial understanding of Penney’s customers and quickly jumped to an Apple-inspired solution—undiscounted, branded merchandise sold in a hip setting by quirky salespeople supported by a fresh, minimalist brand. The assumption, which proved to be wrong, was that Penney’s customers were like Apple Store customers. This assumption also explains why Johnson didn’t see a need to pilot-test his solution. If Apple Store and Penney’s customers are similar, what worked at Apple will work at J.C. Penney.

When we face complex problems involving customers or users we understand poorly, we should avoid narrowly framing them by analogy to other situations. Instead, we should use a design thinking approach to solve them, starting with understanding the problem from the perspective of the people who experience it. Doing so can help us identify opportunities for solutions that we would otherwise miss. We can then prototype multiple potential solutions and test them with real users, rather than “bet the farm” on one idea that may not work.

Pitfall 5: Miscommunication

Recent research shows the main cause of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease is the overconsumption of sugar—not fat. British scientist John Yudkin made this discovery in the late 1950s, but policy-makers largely ignored his findings. When Yudkin died in 1995, his research had long been forgotten. Until scientists rediscovered the role of sugar in the 2000s, nutritionists and public health authorities issued dietary guidelines primarily focused on reducing saturated fat consumption.

How did they get it so wrong for so long? One of the main reasons was that Yudkin was wholly unpersuasive. Although Yudkin was an internationally recognized nutritionist, his story was counterintuitive, especially to lay people: how could sugar generate more harmful fat in the body than fat itself?

In contrast, his rival, Ancel Keys, had a flawed story – focused on fat – but did a beautiful job of selling it to both scientists and policy makers. Keys also fought Yudkin ruthlessly, calling his theory “a mountain of nonsense,” and accusing him of issuing propaganda for the meat and dairy industries.

This example illustrates a well-known point: communication is critical to motivate action. Solving the problem is worthless if you can’t sell your solution to decision makers. This happens far too often in organizations, where reports are reviewed, archived and forgotten, with no tangible impact.

But Keys’s story shows the opposite problem can be even more harmful: brilliant communication of the wrong answer can lead to misguided and detrimental action. This is why the approach to selling the solution must be grounded in the problem solving process. The evidence from the problem-solving process must provide the rationale for the recommended solution, which must address the core question from the problem statement and each element of the TOSCA checklist.

How to Solve the Toughest Business Problems

As these five stories illustrate, even experienced leaders make surprising and costly mistakes when solving complex problems and selling their solutions. But these pitfalls are not without preventive measures. Following a disciplined method can help you avoid the pitfalls and develop and sell better solutions. In our new book, Cracked It! How to Solve Big Problems and Sell Solutions Like Top Strategy Consultants, we provide a step-by-step process and toolkit to help readers tackle challenging business problems. We guide you through each step in our 4S method: from how to state, structure and then solve problems to how to sell the solutions.

While the idea of a structured problem-solving process may not sound exciting, the guidance and discipline it provides can give leaders the confidence and ability to crack the problems that matter most to their organizations.