Beyond Solving: Pushing, Preserving, and Promoting Problems
Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)
As a consultant, I observe that people rarely just solve problems. Instead, they often push issues elsewhere, preserve them to maintain their own relevance, or promote new ones. Drawing on insights from Clay Shirky and Jerry Weinberg, I argue that understanding these three 'P's is crucial. We must recognize who benefits from a problem's existence and abandon the illusion that we can ever finish solving them all.
People who can solve problems do lead better lives. But people who can ignore problems, when they choose to, live the best lives.
- golly_ned
My favorite is ignoring or downplaying a problem. 95% of apparent 'problems' are best ignored in favor of solving the worthwhile 5%.
Sometimes this means 'creating' a new problem by pointing to something unconsidered that's 10x more important.
- 0wis
Nice article, interesting to keep an open mind.
On "No. 0002. Preserving problems", it can happen to people too, no need for a complex system at the size of a company. I have often noticed recognized experts keeping the root of the problem unsolved because it was justifying their position. I may even have been subject of this curse. As an expert, you may know the root cause but have no incentive to solve it and it can be harder to mobilize ressources to solve the root cause than to keep solving the superficial issue. It is management or outside help role to identify and push for solving problems at their root, but it takes time and dedication because of expertise. As most of the time, incentives explain nearly everything.
- rawgabbit
The "meta" problem is that political in-fighting usually results in local optimization everywhere. Various departments throw each other under the bus to steal budget/people/resources. When leadership finally decides to right the bus, they hire an outside consultant; this is an important signal to the departments to stop the nonsense and tell the consultant what everyone knows but doesn't want to talk about. Serious problems require serious solutions. It is much easier to say if Y department would give us X, then line go up forever.
- Nevermark
This is a gross oversimplification of my experience with conservative vs. liberal friends.
But there is enough truth in it to at least be worth the humor.
My conservative friends respond to a problem by mashing all its symptoms, and often operate on assumptions they have never tested. And would resist testing.
My liberal friends respond to a solution, veering away hard from the solution's costs, without first asking how they can be mitigated or if the accounting still works out positive.
Disclaimer: Could be anecdotal. Could be projection. But for my population of five people, the correlation is 100%! They would all likely agree too. Given enough beer, and with my recorder out of sight.
- cheschire
Seems related to the four risk management strategies:
- Avoidance
- Mitigation
- Transference
- Acceptance
- zkmon
You make two big assumptions - 1) The problem is really a problem, it is not invented by the consultant, it is well defined, deserves "solving", 2) the person or team is the one who is responsible for doing something about it. 3) "Solving" is justified by overall cost-benefit view.
The "pushing around" could be about letting the right person/team handle it. "Preserving" could be due to lack of business justification to "solve" it. Promoting new problem could be due to poor understanding of the problem and solution, usually due to consultants pushing for it.
- didgetmaster
People often attribute the government's inability to solve a problem even after throwing billions of dollars at it; as a sign of incompetence. While there is plenty of incompetence within government; I think the 'Preserve the Problem' response is mostly to blame.
If we 'solved' crime, homelessness, drug use, poverty, etc.; then budgets would decrease and political power would diminish. Those in charge of solving the problem often have the least incentive to do so.
- black6
The company for which I work seems to be run by engineers. When learning to be an engineer you're taught that doing nothing is always a valid option. In Army leadership courses we were taught that ANY decision is better than NO decision.
My company is stifled by a bunch of engineers in leadership positions who always choose to defer up the chain rather than make a decision themselves.