Problem Solving – The Way We See the Problem is the Problem

What this session covered

This was the 118th webinar hosted by NISSMAT, on the theme "The Way We See the Problem is the Problem". The institute's president opened the session with remarks on the organisation's history and its move towards a research and think-tank function, and framed the subject around the idea that difficulties in personal, family and professional life are shaped as much by how a problem is perceived and named as by the problem itself. A moderator then introduced three speakers, drawn respectively from human resources, international corporate investigation and the military, each of whom addressed the theme from the standpoint of their own field. The format was a sequence of complementary presentations followed by audience questions, rather than a debate.

One speaker approached the topic from a human-resources perspective, describing a problem as the gap between an actual situation and a desired one, and distinguishing a broader problematic situation from a clearly defined problem. Much of this contribution catalogued the influences said to shape how an individual frames a problem — among them beliefs and assumptions, values, ideology, personal background, personality, generational difference, experience and education — with illustrations drawn from corporate governance and contemporary policy, together with a note on structured methods of problem definition and on the use of data and artificial intelligence in processing them. A second speaker emphasised reframing a problem as one or more open questions as a way of engaging constructive thought, and discussed the bearing of cultural context and cross-cultural assumptions on problem-solving, including the difficulty of recognising one's own ingrained cultural habits. A third speaker, from a military background, stressed first establishing whether a situation is genuinely a problem as opposed to a dilemma or predicament, taking ownership of it, gathering information while avoiding assumptions, breaking it into smaller parts, and concentrating on what still functions rather than only on what has failed.

Among the illustrations used by the third speaker was the account of the Apollo 13 mission, in which attention to what remained usable was presented as the turning point. The audience discussion touched on identifying the root cause of a difficulty at an early stage, and on the use of role-play and perspective-taking to see a problem through another's eyes. In closing, the president returned to the value of adjusting one's own perspective to that of the person posing a problem and to the distinction between empathy and sympathy. The discussion remained at the level of general principle and personal experience, and no single approach was presented as an institutional position.

Key points raised

• The session's central proposition was that the way a problem is perceived and framed shapes the solutions that become available.
• One speaker described a problem as the gap between an actual and a desired situation, and set out numerous influences — beliefs, values, ideology, background, personality, generation, experience and education — that shape how individuals define a problem.
• Reframing a problem as one or more open questions was offered as a way to engage more constructive thinking.
• A distinction was drawn between a genuine problem and a dilemma, predicament or challenge, with the recommendation to establish which one is faced before attempting a solution.
• Cultural context and cross-cultural assumptions were discussed as significant factors in international problem-solving.
• Focusing on what still functions rather than only on what has failed was illustrated through the account of the Apollo 13 mission; role-play and perspective-taking were suggested in the Q&A as further aids.