Alternative Reactions to Problems (Beyond Solving Them)

When people discover my profession as a consultant, the dialogue naturally shifts toward the nature of problems and how to fix them. In reality, I am typically brought in only after a situation has deteriorated to a critical point.

A problem becomes "worth the trouble" of hiring an external expert when the cost of inaction exceeds the investment of:

• Time
• Financial Capital
• Human Effort
• Professional Reputation

While the obvious goal is solving the issue, I have observed that people often default to three other behavioral patterns. I call these the "Three Ps."

The Taxonomy of Problem Responses

---

1. Pushing Problems Around

In my experience facilitating continuous improvement, "pushing" is the most frequent outcome. This is the hallmark of local optimization within medium-to-large corporations.

It is a paradoxical state: it is simultaneously "fine" (because the individual's immediate area improves) and a massive waste of resources (because the systemic issue remains).

Crucial Insight: Do not blame the employees. They are simply playing the game_of_incentives to win. To stop the pushing, you must look toward the boss's boss to rectify the systemic view and the reward structures.

---

2. Preserving Problems

Some entities actually benefit from the existence of a problem. This is best described by the Shirky Principle.

"Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution." — Clay Shirky (2010)

Kevin Kelly expanded on this, noting that complex solutions—such as entire industries or companies—can become so entwined with the problem they were meant to fix that they inadvertently keep that problem alive.

The Strategy: When tackling a problem, identify who depends on its existence. You don't need to agree with them, but you must account for them in your strategy.

---

3. Promoting New Problems

Solving a problem is rarely the end of the story; often, it is merely a promotion ceremony for the next obstacle.

As Jerry Weinberg noted, once you eliminate your primary concern, you simply promote the secondary one. Mathematically, we can view this as: $\text{Problem}_{n} \rightarrow \text{Solved} \implies \text{Problem}_{n+1} \rightarrow \text{Primary}$

This aligns with Neil Postman’s inquiry regarding technology:

"What problems do we create by solving this problem?"

We can represent this logic in a simple loop:

while True:
    current_problem = get_top_priority_issue()
    solve(current_problem)
    # The next problem in the queue is now promoted to top priority
    promote_next_issue() 

---

The Consultant's Paradox

To succeed in consulting, one must possess a contradictory relationship with struggle: you must detest problems, yet be perfectly comfortable living with them.

The secret to sanity in this field is abandoning the illusion that you will ever finish solving all problems. Once you accept that the queue is infinite, you can actually relax.

My Practical Approach

To dispel the myth of "total resolution," I utilize visual mapping. By creating a comprehensive diagram, stakeholders can:

• Visualize the entire problem landscape.
• Reach a consensus on what the actual problems are.
• Select a small subset of issues that are actually worth the effort to fix.

Ultimately, those who have the discipline to selectively ignore problems are the ones who lead the most fulfilling lives.