To Solve a Tough Problem, Reframe It
Five steps to ensure that you don’t jump to solutions by Julia Binder and Michael D. Watkins
Summary .
When business leaders confront complex problems, there’s a powerful impulse to dive right into “solving” mode: You gather a team and then identify potential solutions. That’s fine for challenges you’ve faced before or when proven methods yield good results. But what happens when a new type of problem arises or aspects of a familiar one shift substantially? Or if you’re not exactly sure what the problem is?
Research conducted by us and others shows that leaders and their teams devote too little effort to examining and defining problems before trying to solve them. A study by Paul Nutt of Ohio State University, for example, looked at 350 decision-making processes at medium to large companies and found that more than half failed to achieve desired results, often because perceived time pressure caused people to pay insufficient attention to examining problems from all angles and exploring their complexities. By jumping immediately into problem-solving, teams limit their ability to design innovative and durable solutions.
When we work with organizations and teams, we encourage them to spend more time up front on problem-framing, a process for understanding and defining a problem. Exploring frames is like looking at a scene through various camera lenses while adjusting your angle, aperture, and focus. A wide-angle lens will give you a very different photo from that taken with a telephoto lens, and shifting your angle and depth of focus yields distinct images. Effective problem-framing is similar: Looking at a problem from a variety of perspectives lets you uncover new insights and generate fresh ideas.
As with all essential processes, it helps to have a methodology and a road map. This article introduces the E5 approach to problem-framing—expand, examine, empathize, elevate, and envision—and offers tools that enable leaders to fully explore the problem space.
Phase 1: Expand
In the first phase, set aside preconceptions and open your mind. We recommend using a tool called frame-storming, which encourages a comprehensive exploration of an issue and its nuances. It is a neglected precursor to brainstorming, which typically focuses on generating many different answers for an already framed challenge. Frame-storming helps teams identify assumptions and blind spots, mitigating the risk of pursuing inadequate or biased solutions. The goal is to spark innovation and creativity as people dig into—or as Tina Seelig from Stanford puts it, “fall in love with”—the problem.
Begin by assembling a diverse team, encompassing a variety of types of expertise and perspectives. Involving outsiders can be helpful, since they’re often coming to the issue cold. A good way to prompt the team to consider alternative scenarios is by asking “What if…?” and “How might we…?” questions. For example, ask your team, “What if we had access to unlimited resources to tackle this issue?” or “How might better collaboration between departments or teams help us tackle this issue?” The primary objective is to generate many alternative problem frames, allowing for a more holistic understanding of the issue. Within an open, nonjudgmental atmosphere, you deliberately challenge established thinking—what we call “breaking” the frame.
It may be easy to eliminate some possibilities, and that’s exactly what you should do. Rather than make assumptions, generate alternative hypotheses and then test them.
Consider the problem-framing process at a company we’ll call Omega Soundscapes, a midsize producer of high-end headphones. (Omega is a composite of several firms we’ve worked with.) Omega’s sales had declined substantially over the past two quarters, and the leadership team’s initial diagnosis, or reference frame, was that recent price hikes to its flagship product made it too expensive for its target market. Before acting on this assumption, the team convened knowledgeable representatives from sales, marketing, R&D, customer service, and external consultants to do some frame-storming. Team members were asked:
- What if we lowered the price of our flagship product? How would that impact sales and profitability?
- How might we identify customers in new target markets who could afford our headphones at the current price?
- What if we offered financing or a subscription-based model for our headphones? How would that change perceptions of affordability?
- How might we optimize our supply chain and production processes to reduce manufacturing costs without compromising quality?
In playing out each of those scenarios, the Omega team generated several problem frames:
- The target market’s preferences have evolved.
- New competitors have entered the market.
- Product quality has decreased.
- Something has damaged perceptions of the brand.
- Something has changed in the priorities of our key distributors.
Each of the frames presented a unique angle from which to approach the problem of declining sales, setting the stage for the development of diverse potential solutions. At this stage, it may be relatively easy to eliminate some possibilities, and that’s exactly what you should do. Rather than make assumptions, generate alternative hypotheses and then test them.
See more HBR charts in Data & Visuals
Phase 2: Examine
If the expand phase is about identifying all the facets of a problem, this one is about diving deep to identify root causes. The team investigates the issue thoroughly, peeling back the layers to understand underlying drivers and systemic contributors.
A useful tool for doing this is the iceberg model, which guides the team through layers of causation: surface-level events, the behavioral patterns that drive them, underlying systematic structures, and established mental models. As you probe ever deeper and document your findings, you begin to home in on the problem’s root causes. As is the case in the expand phase, open discussions and collaborative research are crucial for achieving a comprehensive analysis.
Let’s return to our Omega Soundscapes example and use the iceberg model to delve into the issues surrounding the two quarters of declining sales. Starting with the first layer beneath the surface, the behavioral pattern, the team diligently analyzed customer feedback. It discovered a significant drop in brand loyalty. This finding validated the problem frame of a “shifting brand perception,” prompting further investigation into what might have been causing it.
Phase 3: Empathize
In this phase, the focus is on the stakeholders—employees, customers, clients, investors, supply chain partners, and other parties—who are most central to and affected by the problem under investigation. The core objective is to understand how they perceive the issue: what they think and feel, how they’re acting, and what they want.
First list all the people who are directly or indirectly relevant to the problem. It may be helpful to create a visual representation of the network of relationships in the ecosystem. Prioritize the stakeholders according to their level of influence on and interest in the problem, and focus on understanding the roles, demographics, behavior patterns, motivations, and goals of the most important ones.
Now create empathy maps for those critical stakeholders. Make a template divided into four sections: Say, Think, Feel, and Do. Conduct interviews or surveys to gather authentic data. How do various users explain the problem? How do they think about the issue, and how do their beliefs inform that thinking? What emotions are they feeling and expressing? How are they behaving? Populate each section of the map with notes based on your observations and interactions. Finally, analyze the completed empathy maps. Look for pain points, inconsistencies, and patterns in stakeholder perspectives.
Returning to the Omega case study, the team identified its ecosystem of stakeholders: customers (both current and potential); retail partners and distributors; the R&D, marketing, and sales teams; suppliers of headphone components; investors and shareholders; and new and existing competitors. They narrowed the list to a few key stakeholders related to the declining-sales problem: customers, retail partners, and investors/shareholders; Omega created empathy maps for representatives from each.
Here’s what the empathy maps showed about what the stakeholders were saying, thinking, feeling, and doing:
Sarah, the customer, complained on social media about the high price of her favorite headphones. Dave, the retailer, expressed concerns about unsold inventory and the challenge of convincing customers to buy the expensive headphones. Alex, the shareholder, brought up Omega’s declining financial performance during its annual investor day.
Sarah thought that Omega was losing touch with its loyal customer base. Dave was considering whether to continue carrying Omega’s products in his store or explore other brands. Alex was contemplating diversifying his portfolio into other consumer-tech companies.
As a longtime supporter of the brand, Sarah felt frustrated and slightly betrayed. Dave was feeling anxious about the drop in sales and the impact on his store’s profitability. Alex was unhappy with the declining stock value.
Sarah was looking for alternatives to the headphones, even though she loves the product’s quality. Dave was scheduling a call with Omega to negotiate pricing and terms. Alex was planning to attend Omega’s next shareholder meeting to find out more information from the leadership team.
When Omega leaders analyzed the data in the maps, they realized that pricing wasn’t the only reason for declining sales. A more profound issue was customers’ dissatisfaction with the perceived price-to-quality ratio, especially when compared with competitors’ offerings. That insight prompted the team to consider enhancing the headphones with additional features, offering more-affordable alternatives, and possibly switching to a service model.
Phase 4: Elevate
This phase involves exploring how the problem connects to broader organizational issues. It’s like zooming out on a map to understand where a city lies in relation to the whole country or continent. This bird’s-eye view reveals interconnected issues and their implications.
For this analysis, we recommend the four-frame model developed by Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal, which offers distinct lenses through which to view the problem at a higher level. The structural frame helps you explore formal structures (such as hierarchy and reporting relationships); processes (such as workflow); and systems, rules, and policies. This frame examines efficiency, coordination, and alignment of activities.
The human resources frame focuses on people, relationships, and social dynamics. This includes teamwork, leadership, employee motivation, engagement, professional development, and personal growth. In this frame, the organization is seen as a community or a family that recognizes that talent is its most valuable asset. The political frame delves into power dynamics, competing interests, conflicts, coalitions, and negotiations. From this perspective, organizations are arenas where various stakeholders vie for resources and engage in political struggles to influence decisions. It helps you see how power is distributed, used, and contested.
The symbolic frame highlights the importance of symbols, rituals, stories, and shared values in shaping group identity and culture. In it, organizations are depicted as theaters through which its members make meaning.
Using this model, the Omega team generated the following insights in the four frames:
Structural.
A deeper look into the company’s structure revealed siloing and a lack of coordination between the R&D and marketing departments, which had led to misaligned messaging to customers. It also highlighted a lack of collaboration between the two functions and pointed to the need to communicate with the target market about the product’s features and benefits in a coherent and compelling way.
Human resources.
This frame revealed that the declining sales and price hikes had ramped up pressure on the sales team, damaging morale. The demotivated team was struggling to effectively promote the product, making it harder to recover from declining sales. Omega realized it was lacking adequate support, training, and incentives for the team.
The key insight from this frame was that the finance team’s reluctance to approve promotions in the sales group to maintain margins was exacerbating the morale problem. Omega understood that investing in sales leadership development while still generating profits was crucial for long-term success and that frank discussions about the issue were needed.
This frame highlighted an important misalignment in perception: The company believed that its headphones were of “top quality,” while customers reported in surveys that they were “overpriced.” This divergence raised alarm that branding, marketing, and pricing strategies, which were all predicated on the central corporate value of superior quality, were no longer resonating with customers. Omega realized that it had been paying too little attention to quality assurance and functionality.
Phase 5: Envision
In this phase, you transition from framing the problem to actively imagining and designing solutions. This involves synthesizing the insights gained from earlier phases and crafting a shared vision of the desired future state.
Here we recommend using a technique known as backcasting. First, clearly define your desired goal. For example, a team struggling with missed deadlines and declining productivity might aim to achieve on-time completion rates of 98% for its projects and increase its volume of projects by 5% over the next year. Next, reverse engineer the path to achieving your goal. Outline key milestones required over both the short term and the long term. For each one, pinpoint specific interventions, strategies, and initiatives that will propel you closer to your goal. These may encompass changes in processes, policies, technologies, and behaviors. Synthesize the activities into a sequenced, chronological, prioritized road map or action plan, and allocate the resources, including time, budget, and personnel, necessary to implement your plan. Finally, monitor progress toward your goal and be prepared to adjust the plan in response to outcomes, feedback, or changing circumstances. This approach ensures that the team’s efforts in implementing the insights from the previous phases are strategically and purposefully directed toward a concrete destination.
Applying the Approach
Albert Einstein once said, “If I had one hour to solve a problem, I would spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about the solution.” That philosophy underpins our E5 framework, which provides a structured approach for conscientiously engaging with complex problems before leaping to solutions.
As teams use the methodology, they must understand that problem-framing in today’s intricate business landscape is rarely a linear process. While we’re attempting to provide a structured path, we also recognize the dynamic nature of problems and the need for adaptability. Invariably, as teams begin to implement solutions, new facets of a problem may come to light, unforeseen challenges may arise, or external circumstances may evolve. Your team should be ready to loop back to previous phases—for instance, revisiting the expand phase to reassess the problem’s frame, delving deeper into an overlooked root cause in another examine phase, or gathering fresh insights from stakeholders in a new empathize phase. Ultimately, the E5 framework is intended to foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation.
Partner Center
IMAGES
VIDEO