• Business Essentials
  • Leadership & Management
  • Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
  • Entrepreneurship & Innovation
  • *New* Digital Transformation
  • Finance & Accounting
  • Business in Society
  • For Organizations
  • Support Portal
  • Media Coverage
  • Founding Donors
  • Leadership Team

why is problem solving important for leaders

  • Harvard Business School →
  • HBS Online →
  • Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

  • Career Development
  • Communication
  • Decision-Making
  • Earning Your MBA
  • Negotiation
  • News & Events
  • Productivity
  • Staff Spotlight
  • Student Profiles
  • Work-Life Balance
  • Alternative Investments
  • Business Analytics
  • Business Strategy
  • Business and Climate Change
  • Design Thinking and Innovation
  • Digital Marketing Strategy
  • Disruptive Strategy
  • Economics for Managers
  • Entrepreneurship Essentials
  • Financial Accounting
  • Global Business
  • Launching Tech Ventures
  • Leadership Principles
  • Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
  • Leading with Finance
  • Management Essentials
  • Negotiation Mastery
  • Organizational Leadership
  • Power and Influence for Positive Impact
  • Strategy Execution
  • Sustainable Business Strategy
  • Sustainable Investing
  • Winning with Digital Platforms

Why Problem-Solving Skills Are Essential for Leaders in Any Industry

Business man leading team in problem-solving exercise with white board

  • 17 Jan 2023

Any organization offering a product or service is in the business of solving problems.

Whether providing medical care to address health issues or quick convenience to those hungry for dinner, a business’s purpose is to satisfy customer needs .

In addition to solving customers’ problems, you’ll undoubtedly encounter challenges within your organization as it evolves to meet customer needs. You’re likely to experience growing pains in the form of missed targets, unattained goals, and team disagreements.

Yet, the ubiquity of problems doesn’t have to be discouraging; with the right frameworks and tools, you can build the skills to solve consumers' and your organization’s most challenging issues.

Here’s a primer on problem-solving in business, why it’s important, the skills you need, and how to build them.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Problem-Solving in Business?

Problem-solving is the process of systematically removing barriers that prevent you or others from reaching goals.

Your business removes obstacles in customers’ lives through its products or services, just as you can remove obstacles that keep your team from achieving business goals.

Design Thinking

Design thinking , as described by Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar in the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , is a human-centered , solutions-based approach to problem-solving and innovation. Originally created for product design, design thinking’s use case has evolved . It’s now used to solve internal business problems, too.

The design thinking process has four stages :

4 Stages of Design Thinking

  • Clarify: Clarify a problem through research and feedback from those impacted.
  • Ideate: Armed with new insights, generate as many solutions as possible.
  • Develop: Combine and cull your ideas into a short list of viable, feasible, and desirable options before building prototypes (if making physical products) and creating a plan of action (if solving an intangible problem).
  • Implement: Execute the strongest idea, ensuring clear communication with all stakeholders about its potential value and deliberate reasoning.

Using this framework, you can generate innovative ideas that wouldn’t have surfaced otherwise.

Creative Problem-Solving

Another, less structured approach to challenges is creative problem-solving , which employs a series of exercises to explore open-ended solutions and develop new perspectives. This is especially useful when a problem’s root cause has yet to be defined.

You can use creative problem-solving tools in design thinking’s “ideate” stage, which include:

  • Brainstorming: Instruct everyone to develop as many ideas as possible in an allotted time frame without passing judgment.
  • Divergent thinking exercises: Rather than arriving at the same conclusion (convergent thinking), instruct everyone to come up with a unique idea for a given prompt (divergent thinking). This type of exercise helps avoid the tendency to agree with others’ ideas without considering alternatives.
  • Alternate worlds: Ask your team to consider how various personas would manage the problem. For instance, how would a pilot approach it? What about a young child? What about a seasoned engineer?

It can be tempting to fall back on how problems have been solved before, especially if they worked well. However, if you’re striving for innovation, relying on existing systems can stunt your company’s growth.

Related: How to Be a More Creative Problem-Solver at Work: 8 Tips

Why Is Problem-Solving Important for Leaders?

While obstacles’ specifics vary between industries, strong problem-solving skills are crucial for leaders in any field.

Whether building a new product or dealing with internal issues, you’re bound to come up against challenges. Having frameworks and tools at your disposal when they arise can turn issues into opportunities.

As a leader, it’s rarely your responsibility to solve a problem single-handedly, so it’s crucial to know how to empower employees to work together to find the best solution.

Your job is to guide them through each step of the framework and set the parameters and prompts within which they can be creative. Then, you can develop a list of ideas together, test the best ones, and implement the chosen solution.

Related: 5 Design Thinking Skills for Business Professionals

4 Problem-Solving Skills All Leaders Need

1. problem framing.

One key skill for any leader is framing problems in a way that makes sense for their organization. Problem framing is defined in Design Thinking and Innovation as determining the scope, context, and perspective of the problem you’re trying to solve.

“Before you begin to generate solutions for your problem, you must always think hard about how you’re going to frame that problem,” Datar says in the course.

For instance, imagine you work for a company that sells children’s sneakers, and sales have plummeted. When framing the problem, consider:

  • What is the children’s sneaker market like right now?
  • Should we improve the quality of our sneakers?
  • Should we assess all children’s footwear?
  • Is this a marketing issue for children’s sneakers specifically?
  • Is this a bigger issue that impacts how we should market or produce all footwear?

While there’s no one right way to frame a problem, how you do can impact the solutions you generate. It’s imperative to accurately frame problems to align with organizational priorities and ensure your team generates useful ideas for your firm.

To solve a problem, you need to empathize with those impacted by it. Empathy is the ability to understand others’ emotions and experiences. While many believe empathy is a fixed trait, it’s a skill you can strengthen through practice.

When confronted with a problem, consider whom it impacts. Returning to the children’s sneaker example, think of who’s affected:

  • Your organization’s employees, because sales are down
  • The customers who typically buy your sneakers
  • The children who typically wear your sneakers

Empathy is required to get to the problem’s root and consider each group’s perspective. Assuming someone’s perspective often isn’t accurate, so the best way to get that information is by collecting user feedback.

For instance, if you asked customers who typically buy your children’s sneakers why they’ve stopped, they could say, “A new brand of children’s sneakers came onto the market that have soles with more traction. I want my child to be as safe as possible, so I bought those instead.”

When someone shares their feelings and experiences, you have an opportunity to empathize with them. This can yield solutions to their problem that directly address its root and shows you care. In this case, you may design a new line of children’s sneakers with extremely grippy soles for added safety, knowing that’s what your customers care most about.

Related: 3 Effective Methods for Assessing Customer Needs

3. Breaking Cognitive Fixedness

Cognitive fixedness is a state of mind in which you examine situations through the lens of past experiences. This locks you into one mindset rather than allowing you to consider alternative possibilities.

For instance, your cognitive fixedness may make you think rubber is the only material for sneaker treads. What else could you use? Is there a grippier alternative you haven’t considered?

Problem-solving is all about overcoming cognitive fixedness. You not only need to foster this skill in yourself but among your team.

4. Creating a Psychologically Safe Environment

As a leader, it’s your job to create an environment conducive to problem-solving. In a psychologically safe environment, all team members feel comfortable bringing ideas to the table, which are likely influenced by their personal opinions and experiences.

If employees are penalized for “bad” ideas or chastised for questioning long-held procedures and systems, innovation has no place to take root.

By employing the design thinking framework and creative problem-solving exercises, you can foster a setting in which your team feels comfortable sharing ideas and new, innovative solutions can grow.

Design Thinking and Innovation | Uncover creative solutions to your business problems | Learn More

How to Build Problem-Solving Skills

The most obvious answer to how to build your problem-solving skills is perhaps the most intimidating: You must practice.

Again and again, you’ll encounter challenges, use creative problem-solving tools and design thinking frameworks, and assess results to learn what to do differently next time.

While most of your practice will occur within your organization, you can learn in a lower-stakes setting by taking an online course, such as Design Thinking and Innovation . Datar guides you through each tool and framework, presenting real-world business examples to help you envision how you would approach the same types of problems in your organization.

Are you interested in uncovering innovative solutions for your organization’s business problems? Explore Design Thinking and Innovation —one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses —to learn how to leverage proven frameworks and tools to solve challenges. Not sure which course is right for you? Download our free flowchart .

why is problem solving important for leaders

About the Author

Cart

  • SUGGESTED TOPICS
  • The Magazine
  • Newsletters
  • Managing Yourself
  • Managing Teams
  • Work-life Balance
  • The Big Idea
  • Data & Visuals
  • Reading Lists
  • Case Selections
  • HBR Learning
  • Topic Feeds
  • Account Settings
  • Email Preferences

The Power of Leaders Who Focus on Solving Problems

  • Deborah Ancona
  • Hal Gregersen

why is problem solving important for leaders

Can you get people excited about the problems that excite you?

There’s a new kind of leadership taking hold in organizations. Strikingly, these new leaders don’t like to be called leaders, and none has any expectation that they will attract “followers”  personally  — by dint of their charisma, status in a hierarchy, or access to resources. Instead, their method is to get others excited about whatever problem they have identified as ripe for a novel solution. Having fallen in love with a problem, they step up to leadership — but only reluctantly and only as necessary to get it solved. Leadership becomes an intermittent activity as people with enthusiasm and expertise step up as needed, and readily step aside when, based on the needs of the project, another team member’s strengths are more central. Rather than being pure generalists, leaders pursue their own deep expertise, while gaining enough familiarity with other knowledge realms to make the necessary connections. They expect to be involved in a series of initiatives with contributors fluidly assembling and disassembling.

In front of a packed room of MIT students and alumni, Vivienne Ming is holding forth in a style all her own. “Embrace cyborgs,” she calls out, as she clicks to a slide that raises eyebrows even in this tech-smitten crowd. “ Really . Fifteen to 25 years from now, cognitive neuroprosthetics will fundamentally change the definition of what it means to be human.”

why is problem solving important for leaders

  • Deborah Ancona is the Seley Distinguished Professor of Management at MIT’s Sloan School of Management and the founder of the MIT Leadership Center.
  • Hal Gregersen is a Senior Lecturer in Leadership and Innovation at the MIT Sloan School of Management , a globally recognized expert in navigating rapid change, and a Thinkers50 ranked management thinker. He is the author of Questions Are the Answer: A Breakthrough Approach to Your Most Vexing Problems at Work and in Life and the coauthor of The Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators .

Partner Center

Management 3.0

The Importance of Problem-Solving Skills in the Workplace

November 10, 2022 - job & career.

Hands-on Management 3.0 leadership workshops focus on tangible practices to help managers, team leaders, middle management, and C-level executives increase employee engagement and foster transformational change within their organizations. Start Your Leadership Journey Today!

According to Management 3.0 Facilitator Ilija Popjanev , problem solving is essential for individuals and organizations as it enables us to control all aspects of our business environment. In this article, Ilija looks into problem-solving skills, how the problem-solving process works, and which tools help you to advance this skill set.

In this article you will learn about:

What is Problem Solving?

  • Problem-Solving in Six Easy Steps

Why is Problem-Solving so Important for Leaders, Teams, and Organizations?

Problem-solving techniques in the workplace, better employee experience by using problem-solving tools from management 3.0, how do employees develop problem-solving skills, what skills make a good problem solver.

In the last few years, we have been living 100% in the VUCA world, with so many unpredictable and complex threats and challenges. As a result, organizations must create a sense of urgency to redesign their present business models and to rebuild the foundations for the future of work. 

All companies now need effective problem-solving skills and tools at all levels, starting with individuals and teams, and finishing with their leaders and managers. This new reality enables growth and success only for those well-equipped and empowered by effective problem-solving skills and tools. 

One of the behaviors of Management 1.0 style is to constantly look for ways to stop “fighting fires,”. Instead, the Management 3.0 style seeks to “find the root cause” of the problem, and then to refocus, improve, and plan a different way for fulfilling workplace tasks.

Management 3.0 provides effective tools and principles for building the system for effective problem solving. It provides us with techniques we can use to understand what is happening in our world, to identify things we want to change, and then apply everything that needs to be done to achieve the desired outcome. We live by the motto: fail fast, recover quickly, and learn from the failures.

The agile way of working does not mean being perfect, but instead it allows for failures and sees them as opportunities to learn, grow, and adapt . Perfection is useless if we do not provide value fast for our customers. That is why problem solving is the foundation for continuous improvement, learning, and collaboration, which leads to innovations and success in ever-changing economies and the new normal that we now live in. 

The definition of problem solving according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is: “The process or act of finding a solution to a problem.” Similarly, the Oxford English Dictionary describes problem solving as: “The process of finding solutions to difficult or complex issues.”

For me, Problem-solving is a process of understanding and owning the problem, constant pursuit for solutions and improvements, and putting into action the best option for the desired outcome.

Understanding context and interacting with our teammates are the essence of effective problem-solving. We must clearly understand the complexity of our environment and the specifics of the context because things continuously change and evolve. Here, the Complexity Thinking Guidelines may help you to better understand what is happening and how to navigate complex environments more effectively.

We must have a lens through which to see problems as opportunities to improve, and regard our teams as sources of knowledge and experience. We have to connect people and opportunities in ways that can facilitate the best solutions for the problems that we are handling. Try using the Personal Maps , an excellent tool for bringing teams together and fostering diversity, respect, trust, and collaboration.

Today, all innovations and solved problems are team efforts because teams constantly improve their toolbox and competencies. Teams want to create something that was not there before, and which maximize their knowledge and resources.

To accomplish that, they need to build a process in a few easy steps:

  • Be present, observe what is happening in your world, and define the problem.
  • Review where you are now and what influences that state.
  • Constantly improve and change things by using creative tools and tactics.
  • Seek solutions and alternatives to make changes more effective.
  • Make team decisions about which tools and solutions should be used.
  • Implement improvements, monitor the process, and constantly adapt!

Problem-Solving in Six Easy Steps

At this stage, by following the Management 3.0 principle of “Improving the system,” you can use the tools Celebration Grids , combined with Yay! Questions , to best engage the team in the problem-solving process, while keeping track of what is working well, what can be changed, and what new options exist.

Documenting everything is an integral part of the problem-solving process. By using Celebration Grids, you are gamifying the process and keeping the team flow and energy on a higher level.

Also read: What type of problem-solver are you?

Problem-solving is crucial for everyone: individuals, teams, leaders, organizations, and ultimately for all stakeholders because it empowers us to better control the environment and everything that is going on in our world. Try using Delegation Poker so that teams can become more empowered to solve problems both alongside leaders and within their organization. 

Today, the speed of problem solving is important, and that is why organizations must give more power and authority on a team level , so employees can react quickly and even prevent problems. As a leading indicator, the Management 3.0 tool Problem Time can help you measure the time spent on uncompleted problem-solving tasks and activities; this is a valuable add-on to “lead and cycle time” lagging indicators, with which you measure the time taken on completed tasks.

Developing and refining problem-solving skills through constant practice and experimentation can refine the ability to solve problems and address issues with more complexities.

We may face various challenges in our daily work, and effective problem-solving can make a difference.

Make a Difference with Problem-Solving

  • Problem-solving skills are important if you want to add more value . As an agilist, your objective is not to be perfect but to maximize the value you provide for all stakeholders. Start fast, deliver value early, manage failures and prioritize tasks by setting the urgency criteria.
  • Problem-solving skills are important if you need to improve your results. You have to accept the complexity of success factors and better understand the need for changes and improvements in a continually uncertain environment. Results depend on your problem-solving skills!
  • Problem-solving skills are important if you have to fix things that do not work. When your processes are not working as planned, problem solving will give you the structure and mechanisms to identify issues, figure out why things are broken, and take actions to fix them.
  • Problem-solving skills are important when you have to address a risk. Sharpen your problem-solving skills to anticipate future events better and increase the awareness of cause-and-effect relationships. This enables you to take the right actions and influence the outcomes if issues do occur.
  • Problem-solving skills are important if you work simultaneously on several projects. You should apply the same problem-solving techniques when you work on multiple projects, business functions, market segments, services, systems, processes, and teams. Standardize and scale!
  • Problem-solving skills are important when you want to seize the day. Problem solving is all about innovation , building new things, and changing the system into a better one. This can help us to identify opportunities even in challenging times and prepare us for the future. You can visualize the process with the Meddles Game to better understand your ideas, solutions, and activities. It is a great way to engage your team as you can build the problem-solving concept and it is an effective tool for influencing all stakeholders affected by the problem. 

Also read: Collaborative Leadership explained .

Solving complex problems may be difficult, but problems will be solved when we use the right tools. Besides the powerful Management 3.0 tools I already mentioned, as a big fan of Lean and Liberating structures, I think you can find lots of problem-solving techniques to use in your daily business. 

Here is my short list of tools and techniques:

  • 5 Whys – a great way to uncover the root cause is to understand the problem better. 
  • Fishbone analysis – for visual analysis of the root causes of a problem. Easy to combine with ‘5 Whys’ or ‘Mind mapping’ to brainstorm and determine the cause and effect of any problem.
  • Silent brainstorming – gives everyone a chance to participate in idea generation as not only the loudest people, but also the quiet ones, will participate equally. Everyone’s opinion has the same weight. 
  • Mind maps – structured visual diagrams to share your ideas, concepts, and solutions the same way your brain does. You explain the problems quickly, then share fresh ideas, and finally come to a team consensus that can lead to an effective solution. 
  • Six thinking hats – enable your team to consider problems from different angles, focusing on facts, creative solutions, or why some solutions might not work.
  • Agreement certainty matrix – another tremendous visual tool for brainstorming problems and challenges by sorting them into simple, complicated, complex, or chaotic domains to later agree on what approach should be used to solve the concrete problems affecting a team.  
  • Conversation café – enables the team to engage in productive conversations, with less arguing but more active listening, solving the problem in rounds of dialogues until reaching a consensus regarding the best problem-solving approach. 
  • Design thinking – when you are struggling for fresh ideas, the 5-step process will help you empathize with the problem, then begin defining and developing new ideas, before prototyping and testing them. 

Edward Deming’s PDCA is the most known concept for continuous improvement and problem solving. You can gamify your events using the Change Management Game , a card game where PDCA will help you define the problem, take action, collect feedback, and adopt the new solution.

The “carrot and stick” approach, or in HR language, “pay for performance,” does not work anymore, especially for roles that require problem-solving, creativity, and innovative thinking. Creative people need a higher level of authority and empowerment to self-manage challenges and problem scenarios. When leaders and organizations create such systems, they foster intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction among these people. Creatives are seeking self-actualization through their careers.

This is one more case which calls for Management 3.0’s Delegation Poker to define the levels of authority in terms of problem-solving issues, as well as Moving Motivators to define key motivators for increasing productivity and employee satisfaction by changing behavior.

Improving Employee Experience with Problem-Solving

1. Use problem solving as a key motivator – have in mind Millennials and Gen Z creative workers ’ affinity towards tasks in which they feel challenged and have a sense of meaning. Provide them with big and tough problems to solve and use challenging tasks to keep them constantly engaged.

2. Continuous improvement can make a difference – creatives seek a sense of purpose and think outside of the box, so encouraging the ‘How can we execute this task better?’ mindset and problem solving become powerful tools for creating sustainable corporate culture.

3. Don’t connect solving problems with rewards – it can kill the perceived intrinsic value of the activity; it will disengage and dissatisfy employees. Autonomy, trust, respect, and gratitude will do the job. 

4. Apply the seven rules for creative managers – unleash the power of diversity , and cooperation, rely on merits, optimize exploration, open boundaries, keep options open, and update your workplace. 

Improving Employee Experience with Problem-Solving

We start solving problems from a very early age (the alphabet, learning to eat, driving a bicycle etc.). Then, everyday activities sharpen our problem-solving skills and enable us to solve more complex issues. 

As an adult, you can still develop your problem-solving skills by:

  • Daily practicing of logic games, such as chess, and puzzles like Sudoku. 
  • Video games can teach you how to deal with failure and persist in achieving your goals.
  • Keep an idea journal or blog as a collection of all your ideas, thoughts, and patterns. 
  • Think outside of the box – take a different perspective to understand the problem better.
  • Practice brainstorming combined with mind mapping, working with your team.
  • Put yourself in new situations – take on a challenging project at work.
  • Start using the “what if” mindset in daily circumstances and test new approaches.
  • Read more books on creativity and articles which cover your areas of interest. 

I also believe coaching can help build creativity and problem-solving skills, encouraging people to take greater ownership of their work and commit to corporate goals. A coach can provide clear guidance as to what is important at the moment; they help people better, focus, and move into action. By asking powerful questions and challenging others to think outside of the box, the coach removes their barriers and lets them see the situation from a new perspective.

Coaching can provide structure so people develop their own expertise and insights to contribute better when problems arise and the pressure to succeed is growing.

The interview is an excellent opportunity to research a candidate’s problem-solving skills, and STAR questions should be related to their previous experience dealing with problems. A candidate with good problem-solving skills can quickly embed in the team and become a valuable asset for the company.

In my Agility in HR workshops , we regularly discuss interview questions. Some popular STAR questions are:

  • “If you cannot find a solution to a problem, how do you deal with the situation?”
  • “How do you react when faced with unexpected problems or challenges?”
  • “Describe an occasion when you had to adapt at the last minute. How did you handle this?”

Problem-solving requires the ability to identify a problem, find the root cause, create solutions, and execute them. All these steps are essential for achieving the desired results. 

Some of the skills that problem solvers must constantly sharpen are:

  • Collaborative communication . Clear communication is essential when you explain the problem and the solution to your teammates. During brainstorming sessions, asking the right questions to determine the root cause , as well as synergic collaboration are needed.
  • Active listening is important to prevent mistakes as  you can absorb the details your colleagues tell you about the problem. Use open-ended questions for clarification, and always be open to feedback and views that differ from yours.
  • Coachability. The willingness to accept feedback and the ability to improve. Learning from more experienced people, being curious to ask many questions, constructively using your ego, skipping excuses and blaming others, and accepting Feedback Wraps from your coach.
  • Decision making . Problems cannot be solved without risk-taking and bringing important decisions (including relevant data, levels of delegation, alternative solutions etc.) to the forefront.
  • Critical thinking . Be 100% objective when you try to find the cause of the problem. Skip ego trips and personal biases. Identify your mistakes in the thinking process and show personal accountability .
  • Research and data analysis . Proper research allows you to diagnose the actual problem, not just the symptoms. If the cause of the problem is not immediately apparent, you can use the power of data to discover the issue’s history, some patterns, future trends, etc.
  • Persistence . Trust in the problem-solving process you have designed and follow every step with patience and persistence; even when you fail repeatedly, do not give up. Keep moving and remember Thomas Edison’s quote: “I have not failed. I have just found 9,999 ways that do not work.”

Skills of good problem-solvers

In the new VUCA world we now live in, problem solving is a crucial soft skill, and employers are actively seeking people with this skill set because they can prepare for problems before they arise. Problem solvers better identify opportunities, understand their environment, create a solution, and generate ideas that lead to great results and success.

According to a study made by LinkedIn Learning in August 2022 , future skills are rapidly changing, and problem solving is among the top soft skills employers search for from their candidates, as well as communication and leadership skills.

Using all aforementioned tools and practices from Management 3.0, following the guides, and sharpening your skills, will help you not only to be effective in resolving the problems that may arise, but also to solve them with enthusiasm and passion. They will create a higher level of engagement and collaboration in the team and help unleash people’s creativity and innovation. A win-win for everyone!

Photo by Parabol on Unsplash

Have you already read these?

How can a business degree make you a better leader, why you should hire someone with a side hustle, how to expand a small team into a stable, larger group, six reasons to study business management to further your career, privacy overview, sign up for our engaging newsletter.

why is problem solving important for leaders

Subscribe Here!

  • Choosing Workplace
  • Customer Stories
  • Workplace for Good
  • Getting Started
  • Why Workplace
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Future of Work
  • How can Workplace help you?
  • Business Communication
  • Employee Engagement
  • Strengthen Culture
  • Getting Connected
  • Frontline Workers
  • Remote and Hybrid Working
  • Integrations
  • Interactive Demo
  • Features at a Glance
  • Connect to all your tools
  • Workplace & Microsoft
  • Integrations directory
  • Knowledge Library
  • Key Updates
  • Auto-Translate
  • Safety Center
  • Access Codes
  • Pricing Plans
  • Forrester ROI Study
  • Events & Webinars
  • Ebooks & Guides
  • Employee Experience
  • Remote Working
  • Team Collaboration
  • Productivity
  • Become A Partner
  • Service & Reseller Partners
  • Integrations Partners
  • Start Using Workplace
  • Mastering Workplace Features
  • Workplace Use Cases
  • Technical Resources
  • Workplace Academy
  • Help Center
  • Customer Communities
  • What's New in Workplace
  • Set up Guides
  • Domain Management
  • Workplace Integrations
  • Account Management
  • Authentication
  • IT Configuration
  • Account Lifecycle
  • Security and Governance
  • Workplace API
  • Getting started
  • Using Workplace
  • Managing Workplace
  • IT and Developer Support
  • Get in touch

Problem-solving skills in leadership

Do you find yourself fighting fires on a daily basis it’s time to sharpen your problem-solving skills to become a more effective leader..

why is problem solving important for leaders

What is problem solving in leadership?

To explain how problem solving relates to leadership, it’s best to begin with a basic definition. The Oxford English Dictionary describes problem solving as “the action of finding solutions to difficult or complex issues”.

The Chartered Management Institute (CMI) adds a little more color to this. It defines a problem as “the distance between how things currently are and the way they should be. Problem solving forms the ‘bridge’ between these two elements. In order to close the gap, you need to understand the way things are (problem) and the way they ought to be (solution).”

In the workplace, problem solving means dealing with issues or challenges that arise in the course of everyday operations. This could be anything from production delays and customer complaints to skills shortages and employee conflict .

For leaders, the objective is to bring clarity and purpose to problem solving in a way that makes sense for the organization. While the leader has the final say, finding solutions is a collaborative effort that should involve key stakeholders, including employees.

Untangle work with Workplace

From informing everyone about the return to the office to adopting a hybrid way of working, Workplace makes work more simple.

why is problem solving important for leaders

The process of fixing problems

Problem solving leadership should follow these four steps:

Identify the root cause of the problem – do this through fact-finding and getting feedback from those involved.

Brainstorm possible solutions – get ideas from as many people as you can to get a range of perspectives.

Evaluate solutions – draw up a shortlist of workable options and choose the best one.

Implement and evaluate your plan of action – communicate your solution with all stakeholders and explain your reasoning.

As businesses face increasingly complex challenges, some leaders are embracing what the MIT Sloan School of Management calls ‘problem-led leadership’. Instead of concentrating on managing their people, they inspire others through their enthusiasm to solve ‘cool’ problems. While this leadership style won’t be right for every situation, it can work well where innovation and entrepreneurship are needed.

Leaders who problem-solve effectively can improve efficiency , reduce costs, increase customer satisfaction and achieve their strategic goals. If left unresolved, however, problems can spiral and ultimately affect the overall health and performance of your business.

Why is problem solving important in leadership?

The importance of leadership problem-solving skills shouldn’t be underestimated. When you think about it, businesses are beset by processes and interactions that don’t work as well as they could. Having the knowhow – not to mention determination – to overcome such obstacles is vital to make workplaces better for everyone. In fact, a 2022 survey shows that problem solving is among the top five skills UK employees look for in a leader.

Learning how to solve problems proficiently can benefit your organization in many ways. It can help you:

Make better decisions

Being able to solve complex problems with clarity and a rational mindset helps with decision-making. It gives you the confidence to weigh up the pros and cons of each decision before making a final call, without jumping to the wrong conclusion. This ensures the choices you make are right for your team and organization as a whole.

Overcome challenges

No matter how tight a ship you run, you’re always going to come up against obstacles. Challenges are a way of life for businesses, however successful they are.

A leader with good problem-solving skills is able to anticipate issues and have measures in place to deal with them if and when they arise. But they also have the ability to think on their feet and adapt their strategies if needed.

Inspire creativity and innovation

Creativity is useful when trying to solve problems, particularly ones you haven’t experienced before. Leaders who think differently can be great innovators . But they also empower their teams to think outside the box too by creating a safe, non-judgmental environment where all ideas are welcome.

Encourage collaboration

A problem shared is a problem halved, so the saying goes. Successful leaders recognize that problem solving alone is less beneficial than problem solving with a team. This inspires a culture of collaboration , not just between leaders and their team members but between colleagues working together on projects.

Build trust

When your team members know they can rely on you to identify and resolve issues quickly and effectively, it builds trust. They’re also more likely to feel comfortable talking to you if they have a problem of their own that they’re struggling with.

If they’re worried about repercussions, they may avoid sharing it with you. Lack of trust is still an issue in many organizations, with 40% of frontline staff saying they don’t have faith in their leadership, according to Qualtrics .

Reduce risk

Being able to anticipate potential risks and put measures in place to mitigate them makes you better equipped to protect your organization from harm. Having good problem-solving skills in leadership allows you to make informed decisions and avoid costly mistakes, even in times of uncertainty.

Boost morale

Leaders who approach problem solving with positivity and calmness are crucial to keeping team morale high . No one wants a leader who panics at the first sign of trouble. Workers want to feel reassured that they have someone capable in charge who can steer them through times of crisis.

What problems do leaders face?

As a leader, you’re likely to face all manner of setbacks and challenges. In fact, you probably find that hardly a day goes by without some kind of issue cropping up.

Common problems faced by leaders often involve communication barriers, team disagreements, production delays and missed financial targets. To give you an example, below are three common scenarios you might face in the workplace and how to tackle them.

Conflicts between team members

Problem: Cliques have developed and tensions are affecting communication so your team isn’t working as effectively as it could be.

Solution: Settle disputes by encouraging open and honest communication among all team members. Establish roles where each person’s responsibilities and expectations are clearly defined, and hold regular team building sessions to promote unity and togetherness.

Outdated technology hampering production

Problem: Hybrid and remote staff don’t have the right tools to do their job properly, and can’t keep track of who’s working on what, when and from where.

Solution: Evaluate your existing technology and upgrade to newer software and devices, getting feedback from your employees on what they need (52% of workers say the software related to their job is dated and difficult to use). Use a platform with apps that allow teams to collaborate and securely access work information from anywhere.

Customer service complaints

Problem: Customer response times are too slow – your team is taking too long to answer the phone and respond to emails, causing a rise in complaints.

Solution: Establish standard practice for what to do from the moment a customer query is received. Automate repetitive tasks and enable your customers to reach you via multiple channels including email, web chat, phone, social media and text.

What problem-solving skills do leaders need?

Problem solving is something we learn through experience, often by getting it wrong the first time. It requires continual learning, curiosity and agility so you develop a good instinct for what to do when things go wrong. Time is a great teacher, but leadership problem-solving skills can also be honed through workshops, mentoring and training programs.

Some of the key skills leaders need to solve problems include:

Effective communication

Problems can cause anxiety, but it’s vital to stay calm so you don’t transmit a feeling of panic to others. It’s important to establish the facts before clearly relaying the problem to key stakeholders. You’ll also need to inspire the people who are working on the solution to remain focused on the task in hand until it’s resolved. Sometimes, this may involve giving critical feedback and making team members more accountable.

Transparency is key here. When you don’t have open and honest communication across your organization, you develop silos – which can generate more issues than need fixing.

Analytical insight

Your objective should be to find the root cause of the problem. That way, you can find a permanent solution rather than simply papering over the cracks. You’ll need to assess to what extent the issue has affected the overall business by analyzing data, speaking to those involved and looking for distinct patterns of behavior.

Analytical thinking is also important when proposing solutions and taking what you believe to be the right course of action.

Promoting a culture of psychological safety

It’s a leader’s responsibility to create an environment conducive to problem solving. In a safe, open and inclusive workplace, all team members feel comfortable bringing their ideas to the table. No one feels judged or ridiculed for their contributions. Nor do they feel dismissed for questioning the effectiveness of long-established processes and systems.

Not playing the blame game

Mistakes happen.They’re a normal part of growth and development. Instead of pointing fingers when things go wrong, see it as a learning opportunity.

Although you need to identify the cause of an error or problem to solve it effectively – and give feedback where needed – it’s not the same as placing blame. Instead, work towards a solution that ensures the same mistakes don’t keep being repeated.

Emotional intelligence

One of the most important problem-solving skills for leaders is emotional intelligence – the ability to understand emotions and empathize with others. This is crucial when recognizing employees’ problems. An EY Consulting survey found that 90% of US workers believe empathetic leadership leads to greater job satisfaction.

If you approach a problem with anger and frustration, you might make a rash decision or overlook important information. If, on the other hand, you stay calm and measured, you’ll be more inclined to seek feedback to get a broader view of the issue.

A flexible mindset

Problem solving works best when you keep an open mind and aren’t afraid to change direction. Sometimes you’ll need to find a better or more innovative approach to overcoming challenges. A leader with a flexible mindset is always receptive to new ideas and other viewpoints.

It’s clear that problem solving is an essential skill for any leader to have in their armory. So, the next time you face a challenge, take a breath and embrace the opportunity to put your problem-solving leadership abilities to the test.

Keep reading

What is leadership and why is it so important.

  • Why successful leadership depends on a growth mindset
  • How to transition from manager to leader

Let's Stay Connected

Get the latest news and insights from the frontline of work.

By submitting this form, you agree to receive marketing-related electronic communications from Facebook, including news, events, updates and promotional emails. You may withdraw your consent and unsubscribe from such emails at any time. You also acknowledge that you have read and agree to the Workplace Privacy terms.

Recent posts

Leadership | 11 minute read

What is a leader? Are leaders the same as managers? Can you learn to be a leader? We explore what makes a leader and why good leadership is business critical.

Leadership | 7 minute read

Collaborative leadership: what it is and how it can bring your teams together.

Collaborative leaders believe in bringing diverse teams together to achieve organizational goals, solve problems, make decisions and share information. But what does it really take to be a more collaborative leader? We take a look.

Leadership | 4 minute read

3 lessons leaders can take from life

It's the authentic experiences they have in real life that define who people are and can shape how they lead. Here are three of the best examples.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

The Institute of Leadership & Management

  • Problem Solving

Problem Solving is a component of Ownership. Within Problem Solving, we also cover key topics including Spotlight on Problem Solving Tools and Techniques, Spotlight on Gap Analysis and Spotlight on Intuition Problem Solving.

  • Dimensions of Leadership

Leadership Essentials: Problem Solving

It is often easy to overlook or misunderstand the true nature and cause of problems in the workplace. This can lead to missed learning opportunities, the wrong problem being dealt with, or the symptom being removed but not the cause of the underlying problem. You need to diagnose the situation so that the real problem is accurately identified, and if you define problems accurately you will make them easier and less costly to solve. 

‘Leadership Essentials: Problem-Solving’ provides an overview of why problem-solving is essential for leadership capability and includes ‘Top Tips’ on how effective problem-solving can help you become a better leader. The Essentials leaflet is supported by three Spotlights that look at problem-solving in more detail to help you improve your leadership skills:

  • Defining the Problem
  • Gap Analysis
  • Intuition in Problem-Solving

ownership.png

09 February 2018

GettyImages-969143834.jpg

Spotlight on Gap Analysis

34.1 Problem definition -143070846.jpg

Spotlight on Intuition in Problem Solving

"My own experience is that you get as much information as you can and then you pay attention to your intuition, to your informed instinct"

Colin Powell  (Former U.S. Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)

GettyImages-863497498.jpg

Spotlight on Problem Solving Tools and Techniques

"If I were given one hour to save the world, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it." Attributed to Albert Einstein

New to The Institute?

Test your leadership capability, get professional recognition and share your sucess with digital credentials., become a member today  .

GET MEMBERSHIP

The Resolve Blog Logo

Problem Solving and Decision Making - Two Essential Skills of a Good Leader

Darren Matthews

Related Articles

Problem solving and decision making are two fascinating skillsets. We call them out as two separate skills – and they are – but they also make use of the same core attributes.

They feed on a need to communicate well, both through questioning and listening, and be patient and not rushing both processes through. Thus, the greatest challenge any leader faces when it comes to solving problems and decision making is when the pressure of time comes into play. But as Robert Schuller highlights in his quote, allowing problem-solving to become the decision means you’ll never break free from the problem.

“Never bring the problem-solving stage into the decision-making stage. Otherwise, you surrender yourself to the problem rather than the solution.”—Robert H. Schuller

So how does a leader avoid this trap? How do they ensure the problem solving doesn’t become the be-all and end-all?

The 7 steps of Effective Problem Solving and Decision Making

A vital hurdle every leader must overcome is to avoid the impulsive urge to make quick decisions . Often when confronted with a problem, leaders or managers fall back in past behaviours. Urgency creates pressure to act quickly as a result, the problem still exists, just side-lined until it rears its ugly head again.

Good problem solving opens opportunity. A notable example of this is the first principles thinking executed by the likes of Elon Musk and others. Understanding the fundamentals blocks of a process and the problem it’s creating can lead to not just the problem but accelerate beyond it.

So, to avoid the trap, and use problem solving and decision making effectively , you should embody yourself with the following seven steps.

1.      What is the problem?

Often, especially in time-critical situations, people don’t define the problem. Some label themselves as fire-fighters, just content with dowsing out the flames. It is a reactionary behaviour and one commonplace with under-trained leaders. As great as some fire-fighters are, they can only put out so many fires at one time, often becoming a little industry.

The better approach is to define the problem, and this means asking the following questions:

  • What is happening? ( What makes you think there is a problem?)
  • Where is it taking place?
  • How is it happening?
  • When is it happening?
  • Why is it happening?
  • With whom is it happening? (This isn’t a blame game…all you want to do is isolate the problem to a granular level.)
  • Define what you understand to be the problem in writing by using as few sentences as possible. (Look at the answers to your what, where, why, when, and how questions.)

2.      What are the potential causes?

Having defined the problem it is now time to find out what might be causing the problem. Your leadership skills: your communication skills need to be strong, as you look to gather input from your team and those involved in the problem.

Key points:

  • Talk to those involved individually. Groupthink is a common cause of blindness to the problem, especially if there is blame culture within the business.
  • Document what you’ve heard and what you think is the root cause is.
  • Be inquisitive. You don’t know what you don’t know, so get the input of others and open yourself up to the feedback you’ll need to solve this problem.

3.      What other ways can you overcome the problem?

 Sometimes, getting to the root cause can take time. Of course, you can’t ignore it, but it is important to produce a plan to temporarily fix the problem. In business, a problem will be costing the business money, whether it be sales or profit. So, a temporary fix allows the business to move forward, providing it neutralises the downside of the original problem.

4.      How will you resolve the problem?

At this stage, you still don’t know what the actual problem is. All you have is a definition of the problem which is a diagnosis of the issue. You will have the team’s input, as well as your opinions as to what the next steps should be.

If you don’t, then at this stage you should think about reassessing the problem. One way forward could be to become more granular and adopt a first-principles approach.

  • Break the problem down into its core parts
  • What forms the foundational blocks of the system in operation?
  • Ask powerful questions to get to the truth of the problem
  • How do the parts fit together?
  • What was the original purpose of the system working in this way?
  • Name and separate your assumptions from the facts
  • Remind yourself of the goal and create a new solution

Solve hard problems with inversion

Another way is to invert the problem using the following technique:

1. Understand the problem

Every solution starts with developing a clear understanding of what the problem is. In this instance, some clarity of the issue is vital.

2. Ask the opposite question

Convention wisdom means we see the world logically. But what if you turned the logical outcome on its head. Asking the opposite questions brings an unfamiliar perspective.

3. Answer the opposite question

It seems a simple logic, but you can’t just ask the opposite question and not answer it. You must think through the dynamics that come from asking the question. You're looking for alternative viewpoints and thoughts you've not had before.

4. Join your answers up with your original problem

This is where solutions are born. You’re taking your conventional wisdom and aligning it with the opposite perspective. So often the blockers seen in the original problem become part of the solution.

5.      Define a plan to either fix the problem permanently or temporarily

You now know the problem. You understand the fix, and you are a position to assess the risks involved.

Assessing the risks means considering the worst-case scenarios and ensuring you avoid them. Your plan should take into the following points:

  • Is there any downtime to implementing the solution? If so, how long, and how much will it cost? Do you have backup systems in place to minimise the impact?
  • If the risk is too great, consider a temporary fix which keeps current operations in place and gives you time to further prepare for a permanent fix.
  • Document the plan and share it with all the relevant stakeholders. Communication is key.

Here we see the two skills of problem solving and decision making coming together. The two skills are vital to managing business risks as well as solving the problem.

6.      Monitor and measure the plan

Having evolved through the five steps to this stage, you mustn’t take your eye off the ball as it were.

  • Define timelines and assess progress
  • Report to the stakeholders, ensuring everyone is aware of progress or any delays.
  • If the plan doesn’t deliver, ask why? Learn from failure.

7.      Have you fixed the problem?

Don’t forget the problem you started with. Have you fixed it? You might find it wasn’t a problem at all. You will have learnt a lot about the part of the business where the problem occurred, and improvements will have taken place.

Use the opportunity to assess what worked, what didn’t, and what would have helped. These are three good questions to give you some perspective on the process you’ve undertaken.

Problem solving and decision making in unison

Throughout the process of problem solving, you’re making decisions. Right from the beginning when the problem first becomes clear, you have a choice to either react – firefight or to investigate. This progresses as move onto risk assessing the problem and then defining the solutions to overcome the issue.

Throughout the process, the critical element is to make decisions with the correct information to hand. Finding out the facts, as well as defeating your assumptions are all part of the process of making the right decision.

Problem solving and decision making – a process 

Problem solving isn’t easy. It becomes even more challenging when you have decisions to make. The seven steps I’ve outlined will give you the ability to investigate and diagnose the problem correctly.

  • What is the problem?
  • What are the potential causes?
  • What other ways can you overcome the problem?
  • How will you resolve the problem?
  • Define a plan to either fix the problem permanently or temporarily.
  • Monitor and measure the plan.
  • Have you fixed the problem?

Of course, this logical step by step process might not enable you to diagnose the issue at hand. Some problems can be extremely hard, and an alternative approach might help. In this instance, first principles thinking or using the power of inversion are excellent ways to dig into hard problems. Problem solving and decision making are two skills every good leader needs. Using them together is an effective way to work.

A boy posing to thinnk before making a decision.

Get your Free Decision Growth Starter Pack

• Decision-making basics • Real-world examples to guide you • The best of   Decision Growth • Get the 7-day pack in one (free) downloadable file • Practical frameworks to improve your thinking

Two types of decision journal are on the desk waiting to be used.

Why Using a Decision Journal Is a Power Move No One Talks About

A young professional woman thinking about her cognitive biases.

Cognitive Biases Explained: How Our Mind Fools Us

why is problem solving important for leaders

Get Weekly Lessons on Decision Growth

why is problem solving important for leaders

  • Project management Track your team’s tasks and projects in Hive
  • Time tracking Automatically track time spent on Hive actions
  • Goals Set and visualize your most important milestones
  • Collaboration & messaging Connect with your team from anywhere
  • Forms Gather feedback, project intake, client requests and more
  • Proofing & Approvals Streamline design and feedback workflows in Hive
  • See all features
  • Analytics Gain visibility and gather insights into your projects
  • Automations Save time by automating everyday tasks
  • Hive Apps Connect dozens of apps to streamline work from anywhere
  • Integrations Sync Hive with your most-used external apps
  • Templates Quick-start your work in Hive with pre-built templates
  • Download Hive Access your workspace on desktop or mobile
  • Project management Streamline initiatives of any size & customize your workflow by project
  • Resource management Enable seamless resourcing and allocation across your team
  • Project planning Track and plan all upcoming projects in one central location
  • Time tracking Consolidate all time tracking and task management in Hive
  • Cross-company collaboration Unite team goals across your organization
  • Client engagement Build custom client portals and dashboards for external use
  • All use cases
  • Enterprise Bring your organization into one unified platform
  • Agency Streamline project intake, project execution, and client comms
  • University Marketing Maximize value from your marketing and admissions workflows with Hive
  • Nonprofits Seamless planning, fundraising, event execution and more
  • Marketing Streamline your marketing projects and timelines
  • Business operations Track and optimize strategic planning and finance initiatives
  • Education Bring your institutions’ planning, fundraising, and more into Hive
  • Design Use Hive to map out and track all design initiatives and assets
  • On-demand demo Access a guided walk through Hive
  • Customers More on how Teams are using Hive now
  • FAQ & support articles Find answers to your most asked questions
  • Hive University Become a Hive expert with our free Hive U courses
  • Webinars Learn about Hive’s latest features
  • Hive Community Where members discuss and answer questions in the community
  • Professional Services Get hands-on help from our Professional Services team
  • Hive Partners Explore partners services or join as a partner
  • FEATURED WEBINAR

why is problem solving important for leaders

Managing Time in Hive

See how resourcing, timesheets, templates and automation can turn your teams into a streamlined powerhouse!

  • Request Demo
  • Get Started
  • Project management
  • How teams work in Hive
  • Productivity
  • Remote and hybrid work

problem solving skills

6 Problem Solving Skills That All Leaders Should Work On

  • Anouare Abdou
  • January 3, 2023

Chances are, if you are a leader, you are also a pretty good problem-solver . You have come this far because you are proactive about finding solutions. You know how to think critically, strategize and execute. You foster collaboration in your team and make the most of the strengths of each team member. You lean on your communication skills to overcome challenges. 

If you want to take your ability to solve complex problems to the next level, however, you’ll need to actively work on the specific problem-solving skills that differentiate great leaders from excellent ones. 

“More than ever, leaders are facing highly complex, challenging situations that don’t have simple solutions. These include the intersection of employee mental health, diversity and equity expectations, supply chain issues, societal crises, and more,” according to Dr. Mira Brancu , award-winning leader, author, and consulting psychologist. “Employees and customers are expecting more from companies, and therefore the leaders that are needed today are those who have more than just technical expertise in their field – they also have the ability to solve complex problems.” 

On that note, here are six problem-solving skills that all leaders should work on these days. 

1. Calculating the critical path 

Every leader should know how to calculate the critical path in a project, according to Christina Wallace , senior lecturer of Entrepreneurial Management at Harvard Business School, angel investor, and author of “The Portfolio Life: How to Future-Proof Your Career, Avoid Burnout, and Build A Life Bigger Than Your Business Card .” 

Wondering what that even means? In project management, the critical path is the longest sequence of activities that must be completed to ensure a project is finished. Every project has a set of tasks and sub-tasks. Some of them can happen concurrently, while others need to happen in a certain sequence. Identifying all those activities and the dependencies between them allows you to calculate the critical path that leads to the project end date – in simple words, it lets you forecast how long it will take to wrap up your project while anticipating bottlenecks. 

“If you’ve ever been stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic while three lanes winnow down to one, you are familiar with the idea of a bottleneck and its frustrations. It’s the moment when too many things (cars, deadlines) are demanding the same resources at once (roadway, time on your calendar), creating congestion in the system,” says Wallace. Calculating the critical path helps prevent bottlenecks before they happen. Use a Gantt chart , a graphic that displays activities against time, to visualize the critical path of a project – most project-management platforms offer the option to create one. “Visualizing the bottlenecks gives you the opportunity to move things around, add in buffers or simplify processes to ensure your plan is not only feasible but also realistic,” adds Wallace 

2. Sensitivity analysis

If you manage a budget, you’ll also want to know how to run a sensitivity analysis – a technique that tests how robust your predictions are.

“If the economy suddenly hits a recession, will that affect the demand for your work or the pricing power you have over your rates? Are there expenses that could see a sizable change, like the cost of living significantly increasing in a fast-growing city? What about one-off costs that you don’t regularly budget for? According to Wallace, ” do you have a plan to mitigate them?” are questions to ask yourself about your financial planning. The idea of a sensitivity analysis is to consider the assumptions built into your financial model – say, assuming that your team is going to hit certain targets– and assess the likelihood of those assumptions being wrong. 

“A sensitivity analysis gives you the ability to consider multiple scenarios and understand how your financial plans may need to change if the future looks different than you anticipate,” says Wallace. No need to be a CFO to do this either – if you have a budget, you should unpack the assumptions involved in your plan. 

3. Critical thinking 

Speaking of assumptions, how often do you challenge your own biases and seek to look at problems in a variety of ways? It’s a crucial aspect of critical thinking – and critical thinking is a crucial aspect of solving problems. To flex your critical thinking muscles, you’ll want to look at issues from different perspectives. 

“Critical thinking involves seeing an issue from many angles, zooming out to the big picture and zooming into the details and back, and being able to imagine the impact of making different decisions on multiple stakeholders before making a final decision,” says Brancu. 

Practice this with every problem you solve and you may find yourself pleasantly surprised at the solutions that you come up with and the opportunities that open up as a result. 

4. Data gathering 

Data gathering is another important problem-solving skill to work on. Knowing how to gather both qualitative and quantitative data to solve problems is key, according to Brancu. 

“This involves taking the time to speak with critical stakeholders, and business data, and garnering other information to ensure that you are not missing anything important before making a decision. It helps you address your own blind spots,” she says. Gathering information about a challenge before making a move is not time wasted – it’s time gained down the line. 

5. Leveraging advisors 

Wallace says that leaders should build their own personal “board of directors” to solve problems more effectively. Leveraging your relationships in that way is an underrated but powerful problem-solving ability. 

Your advisors should include a collection of folks that you go to for advice, introductions, a fresh perspective, or some hard truth, says Wallace. “They bring their experience, judgment, and network to the table, providing counsel, access, and feedback. Rather than looking for one mentor who can be all things for an indefinite period of time, you can seek out directors who may do a rotation on your board for a few years, maybe more, maybe less.” 

To be clear, you don’t need to officially ask them to be part of your “board.” You simply have to make a point of connecting with them on a regular basis because you appreciate their experience and trust their advice. According to Wallace, you should seek to cover five key roles: a coach, a negotiator, a connector, a cheerleader, and a truth-teller. Turn to them when you’re unsure about how to move forward. 

6. Change-management skills 

Every leader should possess change-management skills when solving problems in this day and age. “Any decision that is made to address a problem needs to consider both the actual change that is required, as well as the people who would be affected. Most leaders overlook the impact and reactions of the people who are affected by any change, or they spend insufficient time considering how to involve different groups of people at different phases of a change process,” according to Brancu. 

“As a result, the problem might get worse because the leader didn’t get buy-in, didn’t communicate the concern or plan sufficiently or didn’t sufficiently address concerns raised,” she adds. 

If you become adept at change management, you’ll solve issues before they even happen. Talk about a useful problem-solving skill.

why is problem solving important for leaders

Join the community!

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

© 2015 – 2024 HIVE® INC.

why is problem solving important for leaders

  • Author Rights
  • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Journal of Leadership Education

  • JOLE 2023 Special Issue
  • Editorial Staff
  • 20th Anniversary Issue
  • The Development of Problem-Solving Skills for Aspiring Educational Leaders

Jeremy D. Visone 10.12806/V17/I4/R3

Introduction

Solving problems is a quintessential aspect of the role of an educational leader. In particular, building leaders, such as principals, assistant principals, and deans of students, are frequently beset by situations that are complex, unique, and open-ended. There are often many possible pathways to resolve the situations, and an astute educational leader needs to consider many factors and constituencies before determining a plan of action. The realm of problem solving might include student misconduct, personnel matters, parental complaints, school culture, instructional leadership, as well as many other aspects of educational administration. Much consideration has been given to the development of problem-solving skills for educational leaders. This study was designed to answer the following research question: “How do aspiring educational leaders’ problem solving skills, as well as perceptions of their problem-solving skills, develop during a year-long graduate course sequence focused on school-level leadership that includes the presentation of real-world scenarios?” This mixed-methods study extends research about the development of problem-solving skills conducted with acting administrators (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992, 1995).

The Nature of Problems

Before examining how educational leaders can process and solve problems effectively, it is worth considering the nature of problems. Allison (1996) posited simply that problems are situations that require thought and/or actions. Further, there are different types of problems presented to educational leaders. First, there are  well-structured problems , which can be defined as those with clear goals and relatively prescribed resolution pathways, including an easy way of determining whether goals were met (Allison, 1996).

Conversely,  ill-structured problems  are those with more open-ended profiles, whereby the goals, resolution pathways, or evidence of success are not necessarily clear. These types of problems could also be considered  unstructured  (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995) or  open-design  (Allison, 1996). Many of the problems presented to educational leaders are unstructured problems. For example, a principal must decide how to discipline children who misbehave, taking into consideration their disciplinary history, rules and protocols of the school, and other contextual factors; determine how best to raise student achievement (Duke, 2014); and resolve personnel disputes among staff members. None of these problems point to singular solutions that can be identified as “right” or “wrong.” Surely there are responses that are less desirable than others (i.e. suspension or recommendation for expulsion for minor infractions), but, with justification and context, many possible solutions exist.

Problem-Solving Perspectives and Models

Various authors have shared perspectives about effective problem solving. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) outlined the “21 Responsibilities of the School Leader.” These responsibilities are highly correlated with student achievement based upon the authors’ meta- analysis of 69 studies about leadership’s effect on student achievement. The most highly correlated of the responsibilities was  situational awareness , which refers to understanding the school deeply enough to anticipate what might go wrong from day-to-day, navigate the individuals and groups within the school, and recognize issues that might surface at a later time (Marzano et al., 2005). Though the authors discuss the utility of situational awareness for long- term, large-scale decision making, in order for an educational leader to effectively solve the daily problems that come her way, she must again have a sense of situational awareness, lest she make seemingly smaller-scale decisions that will lead to large-scale problems later.

Other authors have focused on problems that can be considered more aligned with the daily work of educational leaders. Considering the problem-type classification dichotomies of Allison (1996) and Leithwood and Steinbach (1995), problems that educational leaders face on a daily basis can be identified as either well-structured or unstructured. Various authors have developed problem-solving models focused on unstructured problems (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995; Simon, 1993), and these models will be explored next.

Simon (1993) outlined three phases of the decision-making process. The first is to find problems that need attention. Though many problems of educational leaders are presented directly to them via, for example, an adult referring a child for discipline, a parent registering a complaint about a staff member, or a staff member describing a grievance with a colleague, there is a corollary skill of identifying what problems—of the many that come across one’s desk— require immediate attention, or ultimately, any attention, at all. Second, Simon identified “designing possible courses of action” (p. 395). Finally, educational leaders must evaluate the quality of their decisions. From this point of having selected a viable and positively evaluated potential solution pathway, implementation takes place.

Bolman and Deal (2008) outlined a model of reframing problems using four different frames, through which problems of practice can be viewed. These frames provide leaders with a more complete set of perspectives than they would likely utilize on their own. The  structural frame  represents the procedural and systems-oriented aspects of an organization. Within this frame, a leader might ask whether there is a supervisory relationship involved in a problem, if a protocol exists to solve such a problem, or what efficiencies or logical processes can help steer a leader toward a resolution that meets organizational goals. The  human resource frame  refers to the needs of individuals within the organization. A leader might try to solve a problem of practice with the needs of constituents in mind, considering the development of employees and the balance between their satisfaction and intellectual stimulation and the organization’s needs. The  political frame  includes the often competing interests among individuals and groups within the organization, whereby alliances and negotiations are needed to navigate the potential minefield of many groups’ overlapping aims. From the political frame, a leader could consider what the interpersonal costs will be for the leader and organization among different constituent groups, based upon which alternatives are selected. Last, the  symbolic frame  includes elements of meaning within an organization, such as traditions, unspoken rules, and myths. A leader may need to consider this frame when proposing a solution that might interfere with a long-standing organizational tradition.

Bolman and Deal (2008) identified the political and symbolic frames as weaknesses in most leaders’ consideration of problems of practice, and the weakness in recognizing political aspects of decision making for educational leaders was corroborated by Johnson and Kruse (2009). An implication for leadership preparation is to instruct students in the considerations of these frames and promote their utility when examining problems.

Authors have noted that experts use different processes than novice problem solvers (Simon, 1993; VanLehn, 1991). An application of this would be Simon’s (1993) assertion that experts can rely on their extensive experience to remember solutions to many problems, without having to rely on an extensive analytical process. Further, they may not even consider a “problem” identified by a novice a problem, at all. With respect to educational leaders, Leithwood and Steinbach (1992, 1995) outlined a set of competencies possessed by expert principals, when compared to their typical counterparts. Expert principals were better at identifying the nature of problems; possessing a sense of priority, difficulty, how to proceed, and connectedness to prior situations; setting meaningful goals for problem solving, such as seeking goals that are student-centered and knowledge-focused; using guiding principles and long-term purposes when determining the best courses of action; seeing fewer obstacles and constraints when presented with problems; outlining detailed plans for action that include gathering extensive information to inform decisions along the plan’s pathway; and responding with confidence and calm to problem solving. Next, I will examine how problem-solving skills are developed.

Preparation for Educational Leadership Problem Solving

How can the preparation of leaders move candidates toward the competencies of expert principals? After all, leading a school has been shown to be a remarkably complex enterprise (Hallinger & McCary, 1990; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992), especially if the school is one where student achievement is below expectations (Duke, 2014), and the framing of problems by educational leaders has been espoused as a critically important enterprise (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Dimmock, 1996; Johnson & Kruse, 2009; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992, 1995; Myran & Sutherland, 2016). In other disciplines, such as business management, simulations and case studies are used to foster problem-solving skills for aspiring leaders (Rochford & Borchert, 2011; Salas, Wildman, & Piccolo, 2009), and attention to problem-solving skills has been identified as an essential curricular component in the training of journalism and mass communication students (Bronstein & Fitzpatrick, 2015). Could such real-world problem solving methodologies be effective in the preparation of educational leaders? In a seminal study about problem solving for educational leaders, Leithwood and Steinbach (1992, 1995) sought to determine if effective problem-solving expertise could be explicitly taught, and, if so, could teaching problem- processing expertise be helpful in moving novices toward expert competence? Over the course of four months and four separate learning sessions, participants in the control group were explicitly taught subskills within six problem-solving components: interpretation of the problem for priority, perceived difficulty, data needed for further action, and anecdotes of prior experience that can inform action; goals for solving the problem; large-scale principles that guide decision making; barriers or obstacles that need to be overcome; possible courses of action; and the confidence of the leader to solve the problem. The authors asserted that providing conditions to participants that included models of effective problem-solving, feedback, increasingly complex problem-solving demands, frequent opportunities for practice, group problem-solving, individual reflection, authentic problems, and help to stimulate metacognition and reflection would result in educational leaders improving their problem-solving skills.

The authors used two experts’ ratings of participants’ problem-solving for both process (their methods of attacking the problem) and product (their solutions) using a 0-3 scale in a pretest-posttest design. They found significant increases in some problem-solving skills (problem interpretation, goal setting, and identification of barriers or obstacles that need to be overcome) after explicit instruction (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992, 1995). They recommended conducting more research on the preparation of educational leaders, with particular respect to approaches that would improve the aspiring leaders’ problem-solving skills.

Solving problems for practicing principals could be described as constructivist, since most principals do solve problems within a social context of other stakeholders, such as teachers, parents, and students (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992). Thus, some authors have examined providing opportunities for novice or aspiring leaders to construct meaning from novel scenarios using the benefits of, for example, others’ point of view, expert modeling, simulations, and prior knowledge (Duke, 2014; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992, 1995; Myran & Sutherland, 2016; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2015). Such collaborative inquiry has been effective for teachers, as well (DeLuca, Bolden, & Chan, 2017). Such learning can be considered consistent with the ideas of other social constructivist theorists (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Vygotsky, 1978) as well, since individuals are working together to construct meaning, and they are pushing into areas of uncertainty and lack of expertise.

Shapira-Lishchinsky (2015) added some intriguing findings and recommendations to those of Leithwood and Steinbach (1992, 1995). In this study, 50 teachers with various leadership roles in their schools were presented regularly with ethical dilemmas during their coursework. Participants either interacted with the dilemmas as members of a role play or by observing those chosen. When the role play was completed, the entire group debriefed and discussed the ethical dilemmas and role-playing participants’ treatment of the issues. This method was shown, through qualitative analysis of participants’ discussions during the simulations, to produce rich dialogue and allow for a safe and controlled treatment of difficult issues. As such, the use of simulations was presented as a viable means through which to prepare aspiring educational leaders. Further, the author suggested the use of further studies with simulation-based learning that seek to gain information about aspiring leaders’ self-efficacy and psychological empowerment. A notable example of project-based scenarios in a virtual collaboration environment to prepare educational leaders is the work of Howard, McClannon, and Wallace (2014). Shapira-Lishchinsky (2015) also recommended similar research in other developed countries to observe the utility of the approaches of simulation and social constructivism to examine them for a wider and diverse aspiring administrator candidate pool.

Further, in an extensive review of prior research studies on the subject, Hallinger and Bridges (2017) noted that Problem-Based Learning (PBL), though applied successfully in other professions and written about extensively (Hallinger & Bridges, 1993, 2017; Stentoft, 2017), was relatively unheralded in the preparation of educational leaders. According to the authors, characteristics of PBL included problems replacing theory as the organization of course content, student-led group work, creation of simulated products by students, increased student ownership over learning, and feedback along the way from professors. Their review noted that PBL had positive aspects for participants, such as increased motivation, real-world connections, and positive pressure that resulted from working with a team. However, participants also expressed concerns about time constraints, lack of structure, and interpersonal dynamics within their teams. There were positive effects found on aspiring leaders’ problem-solving skill development with PBL (Copland, 2000; Hallinger & Bridges, 2017). Though PBL is much more prescribed than the scenarios strategy described in the Methods section below, the applicability of real-world problems to the preparation of educational leaders is summarized well by Copland (2000):

[I]nstructional practices that activate prior knowledge and situate learning in contexts similar to those encountered in practice are associated with the development of students’ ability to understand and frame problems. Moreover, the incorporation of debriefing techniques that encourage students’ elaboration of knowledge and reflection on learning appear to help students solidify a way of thinking about problems. (p. 604)

This study involved a one-group pretest-posttest design. No control group was assigned, as the pedagogical strategy in question—the use of real-world scenarios to build problem-solving skill for aspiring educational leaders—is integral to the school’s curriculum that prepares leaders, and, therefore, it is unethical to deny to student participants (Gay & Airasian, 2003). Thus, all participants were provided instruction with the use of real-world scenarios.

Participants.  Graduate students at a regional, comprehensive public university in the Northeast obtaining a 6 th -year degree (equivalent to a second master’s degree) in educational leadership and preparing for certification as educational administrators served as participants. Specifically, students in three sections of the same full-year, two-course sequence, entitled “School Leadership I and II” were invited to participate. This particular course was selected from the degree course sequence, as it deals most directly with the problem-solving nature and daily work of school administrators. Some key outcomes of the course include students using data to drive school improvement action plans, communicating effectively with a variety of stakeholders, creating a safe and caring school climate, creating and maintaining a strategic and viable school budget, articulating all the steps in a hiring process for teachers and administrators, and leading with cultural proficiency.

The three sections were taught by two different professors. The professors used real- world scenarios in at least half of their class meetings throughout the year, or in approximately 15 classes throughout the year. During these classes, students were presented with realistic situations that have occurred, or could occur, in actual public schools. Students worked with their classmates to determine potential solutions to the problems and then discussed their responses as a whole class under the direction of their professor, a master practitioner. Both professors were active school administrators, with more than 25 years combined educational leadership experience in public schools. It should be noted that the scenario presentation and discussions took place during the class sessions, only. These were not presented for homework or in online forums.

Of the 44 students in these three sections, 37 volunteered to participate at some point in the data collection sequence, but not all students in the pretest session attended the posttest session months later and vice versa. As a result, only 20 students’ data were used for the matched pairs analysis. All 37 participants were certified professional educators in public schools in Connecticut. The participants’ professional roles varied and included classroom teachers, instructional coaches, related service personnel, unified arts teachers, as well as other non- administrative educational roles. Characteristics of participants in the overall and matched pairs groups can be found in Table 1.

Table 1 Participant Characteristics

Procedure.  Participants’ data were compared between a fall of 2016 baseline data collection period and a spring of 2017 posttest data collection period. During the fall data collection period, participants were randomly assigned one of two versions of a Google Forms survey. After items about participant characteristics, the survey consisted of 11 items designed to elicit quantitative and qualitative data about participants’ perceptions of their problem-solving abilities, as well as their ability to address real-world problems faced by educational leaders. The participants were asked to rate their perception of their situational awareness, flexibility, and problem solving ability on a 10-point (1-10) Likert scale, following operational definitions of the terms (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Winter, 1982). They were asked, for each construct, to write open-ended responses to justify their numerical rating. They were then asked to write what they perceived they still needed to improve their problem-solving skills. The final four items included two real-world, unstructured, problem-based scenarios for which participants were asked to create plans of action. They were also asked to rate their problem-solving confidence with respect to their proposed action plans for each scenario on a 4-point (0-3) Likert scale.

During the spring data collection period, participants accessed the opposite version of the Google Forms survey from the one they completed in the fall. All items were identical on the two survey versions, except the scenarios, which were different on each survey version. The use of two versions was to ensure that any differences in perceived or actual difficulty among the four scenarios provided would not alter results based upon the timing of participant access (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995). In order to link participants’ fall and spring data in a confidential manner, participants created a unique, six-digit alphanumeric code.

A focus group interview followed each spring data collection session. The interviews were recorded to allow for accurate transcription. The list of standard interview questions can be found in Table 2. This interview protocol was designed to elicit qualitative data with respect to aspiring educational leaders’ perceptions about their developing problem-solving abilities.

Table 2 Focus Group Interview Questions ___________________________________________________________________________________________

Please describe the development of your problem-solving skills as an aspiring educational leader over the course of this school year. In what ways have you improved your skills? Be as specific as you can.

What has been helpful to you (i.e. coursework, readings, experiences, etc.) in this development of your problem-solving skills? Why?

What do you believe you still need for the development in your problem-solving skills as an aspiring educational leader?

Discuss your perception of your ability to problem solve as an aspiring educational leader. How has this changed from the beginning of this school year? Why?

Please add anything else you perceive is relevant to this conversation about the development of your problem-solving skills as an aspiring educational leader.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Data Analysis.

Quantitative data .  Data were obtained from participants’ responses to Likert-scale items relating to their confidence levels with respect to aspects of problem solving, as well as from the rating of participants’ responses to the given scenarios  against a rubric. The educational leadership problem-solving rubric chosen (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995) was used with permission, and it reflects the authors’ work with explicitly teaching practicing educational leaders components of problem solving. The adapted rubric can be found in Figure 1. Through the use of this rubric, each individual response by a participant to a presented scenario was assigned a score from 0-15. It should be noted that affect data (representing the final 3 possible points on the 18-point rubric) were obtained via participants’ self-reporting their confidence with respect to their proposed plans of action. To align with the rubric, participants self-assessed their confidence through this item with a 0-3 scale.

0 = No Use of the Subskill 1 = There is Some Indication of Use of the Subskill 2 = The Subskill is Present to Some Degree 3 = The Subskill is Present to a Marked Degree; This is a Fine Example of this Subskill

Figure 1.  Problem-solving model for unstructured problems. Adapted from “Expert Problem Solving: Evidence from School and District Leaders,” by K. Leithwood and R. Steinbach, pp. 284-285. Copyright 1995 by the State University of New York Press.

I compared Likert-scale items and rubric scores via descriptive statistics and rubric scores also via a paired sample  t -test and Cohen’s  d , all using the software program IBM SPSS. I did not compare the Likert-scale items about situational awareness, flexibility, and problem solving ability with  t -tests or Cohen’s  d , since these items did not represent a validated instrument. They were only single items based upon participants’ ratings compared to literature-based definitions. However, the value of the comparison of means from fall to spring was triangulated with qualitative results to provide meaning. For example, to say that participants’ self-assessment ratings for perceived problem-solving abilities increased, I examined both the mean difference for items from fall to spring and what participants shared throughout the qualitative survey items and focus group interviews.

Prior to scoring participants’ responses to the scenarios using the rubric, and in an effort to maximize the content validity of the rubric scores, I calibrated my use of the rubric with two experts from the field. Two celebrated principals, representing more than 45 combined years of experience in school-level administration, collaboratively and comparatively scored participant responses. Prior to scoring, the team worked collaboratively to construct appropriate and comprehensive exemplar responses to the four problem-solving scenarios. Then the team blindly scored fall pretest scenario responses using the Leithwood and Steinbach (1995) rubric, and upon comparing scores, the interrater reliability correlation coefficient was .941, indicating a high degree of agreement throughout the team.

Qualitative data.  These data were obtained from open-ended items on the survey, including participants’ responses to the given scenarios, as well as the focus group interview transcripts. I analyzed qualitative data consistent with the grounded theory principles of Strauss and Corbin (1998) and the constant comparative methods of Glaser (1965), including a period of open coding of results, leading to axial coding to determine the codes’ dimensions and relationships between categories and their subcategories, and selective coding to arrive at themes. Throughout the entire data analysis process, I repeatedly returned to raw data to determine the applicability of emergent codes to previously analyzed data. Some categorical codes based upon the review of literature were included in the initial coding process. These codes were derived from the existing theoretical problem-solving models of Bolman and Deal (2008) and Leithwood and Steinbach (1995). These codes included  modeling ,  relationships , and  best for kids . Open codes that emerged from the participants’ responses included  experience ,  personality traits ,  current job/role , and  team . Axial coding revealed, for example, that current jobs or roles cited, intuitively, provided both sufficient building-wide perspective and situational memory (i.e. for special education teachers and school counselors) and insufficient experiences (i.e. for classroom teachers) to solve the given problems with confidence. From such understandings of the codes, categories, and their dimensions, themes were developed.

Quantitative Results.   First, participants’ overall, aggregate responses (not matched pairs) were compared from the fall to spring, descriptively. These findings are outlined in Table  3. As is seen in the table, each item saw a modest increase over the course of the year. Participant perceptions of their problem-solving abilities across the three constructs presented (situational awareness, flexibility, and problem solving) did increase over the course of the year, as did the average group score for the problem-solving scenarios. However, due to participant differences in the two data collection periods, these aggregate averages do not represent a matched-pair dataset.

Table 3 Fall to Spring Comparison of Likert-Scale and Rubric-Scored Items

a  These problem-solving dimensions from literature were rated by participants on a scale from 1- 10. b  Participants received a rubric score for each scenario between 0-18. Participants’ two scenario scores for each data collection period (fall, spring) were averaged to arrive at the scores represented here.

In order to determine the statistical significance of the increase in participants’ problem- solving rubric scores, a paired-samples  t -test was applied to the fall ( M  = 9.15;  SD  = 2.1) and spring ( M  = 9.25;  SD  = 2.3) averages. Recall that 20 participants had valid surveys for both the fall and spring. The  t -test ( t  = -.153;  df  = 19;  p  = .880) revealed no statistically significant change from fall to spring, despite the minor increase (0.10). I applied Cohen’s  d  to calculate the effect size. The small sample size ( n  = 20) for the paired-sample  t -test may have contributed to the lack of statistical significance. However, standard deviations were also relatively small, so the question of effect size was of particular importance. Cohen’s  d  was 0.05, which is also very small, indicating that little change—really no improvement, from a statistical standpoint—in participants’ ability to create viable action plans to solve real-world problems occurred throughout the year. However, the participants’ perceptions of their problem-solving abilities did increase, as evidenced by the increases in the paired-samples perception means shown in Table 3, though these data were only examined descriptively (from a quantitative perspective) due to the fact that these questions were individual items that are not part of a validated instrument.

Qualitative Results.   Participant responses to open-ended items on the questionnaire, responses to the scenarios, and oral responses to focus group interview questions served as sources of qualitative data. Since the responses to the scenarios were focused on participant competence with problem solving, as measured by the aforementioned rubric (Leithwood &  Steinbach, 1995), these data were examined separately from data collected from the other two sources.

Responses to scenarios.  As noted, participants’ rubric ratings for the scenarios did not display a statistically significant increase from fall to spring. As such, this outline will not focus upon changes in responses from fall to spring. Rather, I examined the responses, overall, through the lens of the Leithwood and Steinbach (1995) problem-solving framework indicators against which they were rated. Participants typically had outlined reasonable, appropriate, and logical solution processes. For example, in a potential bullying case scenario, two different participants offered, “I would speak to the other [students] individually if they have said or done anything mean to other student [ sic ] and be clear that it is not tolerable and will result in major consequences” and “I would initiate an investigation into the situation beginning with [an] interview with the four girls.” These responses reflect actions that the consulted experts anticipated from participants and deemed as logical and needed interventions. However, these two participants omitted other needed steps, such as addressing the bullied student’s mental health needs, based upon her mother’s report of suicidal ideations. Accordingly, participants earned points for reasonable and logical responses very consistently, yet, few full-credit responses were observed.

Problem interpretation scores were much more varied. For this indicator, some participants were able to identify many, if not all, the major issues in the scenarios that needed attention. For example, for a scenario where two teachers were not interacting professionally toward each other, many participants correctly identified that this particular scenario could include elements of sexual harassment, professionalism, teaching competence, and personality conflict. However, many other participants missed at least two of these key elements of the problem, leaving their solution processes incomplete. The categories of (a) goals and (b) principles and values also displayed a similarly wide distribution of response ratings.

One category, constraints, presented consistent difficulty for the participants. Ratings were routinely 0 and 1. Participants could not consistently report what barriers or obstacles would need addressing prior to success with their proposed solutions. To be clear, it was not a matter of participants listing invalid or unrealistic barriers or obstacles; rather, the participants were typically omitting constraints altogether from their responses. For example, for a scenario involving staff members arriving late and unprepared to data team meetings, many participants did not identify that a school culture of not valuing data-driven decision making or lack of norms for data team work could be constraints that the principal could likely face prior to reaching a successful resolution.

Responses to open-ended items.  When asked for rationale regarding their ratings for situational awareness, flexibility, and problem solving, participants provided open-ended responses. These responses revealed patterns worth considering, and, again, this discussion will consider, in aggregate, responses made in both the pre- and post- data collection periods, again due to the similarities in responses between the two data collection periods. The most frequently observed code (112 incidences) was  experience . Closely related were the codes  current job/role  (50 incidences). Together, these codes typically represented a theme that participants were linking their confidence with respect to problem solving with their exposure (or lack thereof) in their professional work. For example, a participant reported, “As a school counselor, I have a lot of contact with many stakeholders in the school -admin [ sic ], parents, teachers, staff, etc. I feel that I have a pretty good handle on the systemic issues.” This example is one of many where individuals working in counseling, instructional coaching, special education, and other support roles expressed their advanced levels of perspective based upon their regular contact with many stakeholders, including administrators. Thus, they felt they had more prior knowledge and situational memory about problems in their schools.

However, this category of codes also included those, mostly classroom or unified arts teachers, who expressed that their relative lack of experiences outside their own classrooms limited their perspective for larger-scale problem solving. One teacher succinctly summarized this sentiment, “I have limited experience in being part of situations outside of my classroom.” Another focused on the general problem solving skill in her classroom not necessarily translating to confidence with problem solving at the school level: “I feel that I have a high situational awareness as a teacher in the classroom, but as I move through these leadership programs I find that I struggle to take the perspective of a leader.” These experiences were presented in opposition to their book learning or university training. There were a number of instances (65 combined) of references to the value of readings, class discussions, group work, scenarios presented, research, and coursework in the spring survey. When asked what the participants need more, again, experience was referenced often. One participant summarized this concept, “I think that I, personally, need more experience in the day-to-day . . . setting.” Another specifically separated experiences from scenario work, “[T]here is [ sic ] some things you can not [ sic ] learn from merely discussing a ‘what if” scenario. A seasoned administrator learns problem solving skills on the job.”

Another frequently cited code was  personality traits  (63 incidences), which involved participants linking elements of their own personalities to their perceived abilities to process problems, almost exclusively from an assets perspective. Examples of traits identified by participants as potentially helpful in problem solving included: open-mindedness, affinity for working with others, not being judgmental, approachability, listening skills, and flexibility. One teacher exemplified this general approach by indicating, “I feel that I am a good listener in regards to inviting opinions. I enjoy learning through cooperation and am always willing to adapt my teaching to fit needs of the learners.” However, rare statements of personality traits interfering with problem solving included, “I find it hard to trust others [ sic ] abilities” and “my personal thoughts and biases.”

Another important category of the participant responses involved connections with others. First, there were many references to  relationships  (27 incidences), mostly from the perspective that building positive relationships leads to greater problem-solving ability, as the aspiring leader knows stakeholders better and can rely on them due to the history of positive interactions. One participant framed this idea from a deficit perspective, “Not knowing all the outlying relationships among staff members makes situational awareness difficult.” Another identified that established positive relationships are already helpful to an aspiring leader, “I have strong rapport with fellow staff members and administrators in my building.” In a related way, many instances of the code  team  were identified (29). These references overwhelmingly identified that solving problems within a team context is helpful. One participant stated, “I often team with people to discuss possible solutions,” while another elaborated,

I recognize that sometimes problems may arise for which I am not the most qualified or may not have the best answer. I realize that I may need to rely on others or seek out help/opinions to ensure that I make the appropriate decision.

Overall, participants recognized that problem-solving for leaders does not typically occur in a vacuum.

Responses to focus group interview questions.  As with the open-ended responses, patterns were evident in the interview responses, and many of these findings were supportive of the aforementioned themes. First, participants frequently referenced the power of group work to help build their understanding about problems and possible solutions. One participant stated, “hearing other people talk and realizing other concerns that you may not have thought of . . . even as a teacher sometimes, you look at it this way, and someone else says to see it this way.” Another added, “seeing it from a variety of persons [ sic ] point of views. How one person was looking at it, and how another person was looking at it was really helpful.” Also, the participants noted the quality of the discussion was a direct result of “professors who have had real-life experience” as practicing educational leaders, so they could add more realistic feedback and insight to the discussions.

Perhaps most notable in the participant responses during the focus groups was the emphasis on the value of real-world scenarios for the students. These were referenced, without prompting, in all three focus groups by many participants. Answers to the question about what has been most helpful in the development of their problem-solving skills included, “I think the real-world application we are doing,” “I think being presented with all the scenarios,” and “[the professor] brought a lot of real situations.”

With respect to what participants believed they still needed to become better and more confident problem solvers, two patterns emerged. First, students recognized that they have much more to learn, especially with respect to policy and law. It is noteworthy that, with few exceptions, these students had not taken the policy or law courses in the program, and they had not yet completed their administrative internships. Some students actually reported rating themselves as less capable problem solvers in the spring because they now understood more clearly what they lacked in knowledge. One student exemplified this sentiment, “I might have graded myself higher in the fall than I did now . . . [I now can] self identify areas I could improve in that I was not as aware of.” Less confidence in the spring was a minority opinion, however. In a more typical response, another participant stated, “I feel much more prepared for that than I did at the beginning of the year.”

Overall, the most frequently discussed future need identified was experience, either through the administrative internship or work as a formal school administrator. Several students summarized this idea, “That real-world experience to have to deal with it without being able to talk to 8 other people before having to deal with it . . . until you are the person . . . you don’t know” and “They tell you all they want. You don’t know it until you are in it.” Overall, most participants perceived themselves to have grown as problem solvers, but they overwhelmingly recognized that they needed more learning and experience to become confident and effective problem solvers.

This study continues a research pathway about the development of problem-solving skills for administrators by focusing on their preparation. The participants did not see a significant increase in their problem-solving skills over the year-long course in educational leadership.

Whereas, this finding is not consistent with the findings of others who focused on the development of problem-solving skills for school leaders (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2015), nor is it consistent with PBL research about the benefits of that approach for aspiring educational leaders (Copland, 2000; Hallinger & Bridges, 2017), it is important to note that the participants in this study were at a different point in their careers. First, they were aspirants, as opposed to practicing leaders. Also, the studied intervention (scenarios) was not the same or nearly as comprehensive as the prescriptive PBL approach. Further, unlike the participants in either the practicing leader or PBL studies, because these individuals had not yet had their internship experiences, they had no practical work as educational leaders. This theme of lacking practical experience was observed in both open-ended responses and focus group interviews, with participants pointing to their upcoming internship experiences, or even their eventual work as administrators, as a key missing piece of their preparation.

Despite the participants’ lack of real gains across the year of preparation in their problem- solving scores, the participants did, generally, report an increase in their confidence in problem solving, which they attributed to a number of factors. The first was the theme of real-world context. This finding was consistent with others who have advocated for teaching problem solving through real-world scenarios (Duke, 2014; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992, 1995; Myran & Sutherland, 2016; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2015). This study further adds to this conversation, not only a corroboration of the importance of this method (at least in aspiring leaders’ minds), but also that participants specifically recognized their professors’ experiences as school administrators as important for providing examples, context, and credibility to the work in the classroom.

In addition to the scenario approach, the participants also recognized the importance of learning from one another. In addition to the experiences of their practitioner-professors, many participants espoused the value of hearing the diverse perspectives of other students. The use of peer discussion was also an element of instruction in the referenced studies (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2015), corroborating the power of aspiring leaders learning from one another and supporting existing literature about the social nature of problem solving (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992; Vygotsky, 1978).

Finally, the ultimate theme identified through this study is the need for real-world experience in the field as an administrator or intern. It is simply not enough to learn about problem solving or learn the background knowledge needed to solve problems, even when the problems presented are real-world in nature. Scenarios are not enough for aspiring leaders to perceive their problem-solving abilities to be adequate or for their actual problem-solving abilities to improve. They need to be, as some of the participants reasoned, in positions of actual responsibility, where the weight of their decisions will have tangible impacts on stakeholders, including students.

The study of participants’ responses to the scenarios connected to the Four Frames model of Bolman and Deal (2008). The element for which participants received the consistently highest scores was identifying solution processes. This area might most logically be connected to the structural and human resource frames, as solutions typically involve working to meet individuals’ needs, as is necessary in the human resource frame, and attending to protocols and procedures, which is the essence of the structural frame. As identified above, the political and symbolic frames have been cited by the authors as the most underdeveloped by educational leaders, and this assertion is corroborated by the finding in this study that participants struggled the most with identifying constraints, which can sometimes arise from an understanding of the competing personal interests in an organization (political frame) and the underlying meaning behind aspects of an organization (symbolic frame), such as unspoken rules and traditions. The lack of success identifying constraints is also consistent with participants’ statements that they needed actual experiences in leadership roles, during which they would likely encounter, firsthand, the types of constraints they were unable to articulate for the given scenarios. Simply, they had not yet “lived” these types of obstacles.

The study includes several notable limitations. First, the study’s size is limited, particularly with only 20 participants’ data available for the matched pairs analysis. Further, this study was conducted at one university, within one particular certification program, and over three sections of one course, which represented about one-half of the time students spend in the program. It is likely that more gains in problem-solving ability and confidence would have been observed if this study was continued through the internship year. Also, the study did not include a control group. The lack of an experimental design limits the power of conclusions about causality. However, this limitation is mitigated by two factors. First, the results did not indicate a statistically significant improvement, so there is not a need to attribute a gain score to a particular variable (i.e. use of scenarios), anyway, and, second, the qualitative results did reveal the perceived value for participants in the use of scenarios, without any prompting of the researcher. Finally, the participant pool was not particularly diverse, though this fact is not particularly unusual for the selected university, in general, representing a contemporary challenge the university’s state is facing to educate its increasingly diverse student population, with a teaching and administrative workforce that is predominantly White.

The findings in this study invite further research. In addressing some of the limitations identified here, expanding this study to include aspiring administrators across other institutions representing different areas of the United States and other developed countries, would provide a more generalizable set of results. Further, studying the development of problem-solving skills during the administrative internship experience would also add to the work outlined here by considering the practical experience of participants.

In short, this study illustrates for those who prepare educational leaders the value of using scenarios in increasing aspiring leaders’ confidence and knowledge. However, intuitively, scenarios alone are not enough to engender significant change in their actual problem-solving abilities. Whereas, real-world context is important to the development of aspiring educational leaders’ problem-solving skills, the best context is likely to be the real work of administration.

Allison, D. J. (1996). Problem finding, classification and interpretation: In search of a theory of administrative problem processing. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.),  International handbook of educational leadership and administration  (pp. 477–549). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966).  The social construction of reality . Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008).  Re-framing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership  (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bronstein, C., & Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2015). Preparing tomorrow’s leaders: Integrating leadership development in journalism and mass communication education.  Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 70 (1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695814566199

Copland, M. A. (2000). Problem-based learning and prospective principals’ problem-framing ability.  Educational Administration Quarterly ,  36 , 585–607.

Deluca, C., Bolden, B., & Chan, J. (2017). Systemic professional learning through collaborative inquiry: Examining teachers’ perspectives.  Teaching and Teacher Education ,  67 , 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.014

Dimmock, C. (1996). Dilemmas for school leaders and administrators in restructuring. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.),  International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration  (pp. 135–170). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Duke, D. L. (2014). A bold approach to developing leaders for low-performing schools. Management in Education, 28 (3), 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020614537665

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003).  Educational research: Competancies for analysis and applications  (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.  Social Problems, 12 (4), 436-445.

Hallinger, P., & Bridges, E. (1993). Problem-based learning in medical and managerial education. In P. Hallinger, K. Leithwood, & J. Murphy (Eds.),  Cognitive perspectives on educational leadership  (pp. 253–267). New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Hallinger, P., & Bridges, E. M. (2017). A systematic review of research on the use of problem- based learning in the preparation and development of school leaders.  Educational Administration Quarterly . 53(2), 255-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16659347

Hallinger, P., & McCary, C. E. (1990). Developing the strategic thinking of instructional leaders. Elementary School Journal ,  91 (2), 89–108.

Howard, B. B., McClannon, T. W., & Wallace, P. R. (2014). Collaboration through role play among graduate students in educational leadership in distance learning.  American Journal of Distance Education ,  28 (1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2014.868665

Johnson, B. L., & Kruse, S. D. (2009).  Decision making for educational leaders: Underexamined dimensions and issues . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1992). Improving the problem-solving expertise of school administrators: Theory and practice.  Education and Urban Society ,  24 (3), 317–345. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com.ccsu.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1177/0013124592024003003

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1995).  Expert problem solving: Evidence from school and district leaders . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005).  School leadership that works: From research to results . Denver, CO: ASCD.

Myran, S., & Sutherland, I. (2016). Problem posing in leadership education: Using case study to foster more effective problem solving.  Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership ,  19 (4), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458916664763

Rochford, L., & Borchert, P. S. (2011). Assessing higher level learning: Developing rubrics for case analysis.  Journal of Education for Business ,  86 , 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.512319

Salas, E., Wildman, J. L., & Piccolo, R. F. (2009). Using simulation based training to enhance management education.  Academy of Management Learning & Education ,  8 (4), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2009.47785474

Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2015). Simulation-based constructivist approach for education leaders. Educational Management Administration & Leadership ,  43 (6), 972–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214543203

Simon, H. A. (1993). Decision making: Rational, nonrational, and irrational.  Educational Administration Quarterly ,  29 (3), 392–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X93029003009

Stentoft, D. (2017). From saying to doing interdisciplinary learning: Is problem-based learning the answer?  Active Learning in Higher Education ,  18 (1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417693510

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998).  Basics of qualitative research  (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

VanLehn, K. (1991). Rule acquisition events in the discovery of problem-solving strategies. Cognitive Science ,  15 (1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(91)80012-T

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).  Mind in society . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Winter, R. (1982). Dilemma analysis: A contribution to methodology for action research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 12 (3), 166-173.

Author Biography

Dr. Jeremy Visone is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership, Policy, & Instructional Technology. Until 2016, he worked as an administrator at both the elementary and secondary levels, most recently at Anna Reynolds Elementary School, a National Blue Ribbon School in 2016. Dr. Visone can be reached at  [email protected] .

  • Career Advice
  • Job Search & Interview
  • Productivity
  • Public Speaking and Presentation
  • Social & Interpersonal Skills
  • Professional Development
  • Our Products

Eggcellent Work

Importance of problem solving skills in leadership – make a difference and be successful.

Great leaders in U.S. history showed how you can make a difference and be successful. They are exemplars of the importance of problem solving skills in leadership:

  • George Washington  led a ragtag army of colonial soldiers against the professional army of a world power. He overcame almost insurmountable problems as a military leader and as the first president of a new republic.
  • Abraham Lincoln  was the president of a country coming apart at the seams. His determined leadership and overcoming problems, during a time when others gave up, preserved our republic through an unprecedented crisis.
  • Franklin D. Ro osevelt assumed office during the nation’s Great Depression. His administration was focused on solutions with the goal of restoring hope and confidence during a time of hardship and economic crisis.
  • Martin Luther King  attacked the problems of racial discrimination and prejudice with fearless resolve and unparalleled leadership. His “I have a dream” speech is a classic call to solve lingering problems of unfulfilled promises of the American dream.

Table of Contents

How Recruiters Identify the Best Potential Leadership and Problem Solvers

The career path to the C-suite is paved by organizations that increasingly seek solid leadership skills when adding talent to their workforce.

According to  Stephany Samuels , a senior vice president at an IT recruiting and staffing firm, “Companies thrive and grow when their workforce is comprised of leaders that instinctively explore creative solutions and bring out the best in their colleagues.”

What are the leadership traits and qualities recruiters should be looking for? According to this  CNBC article , problem-solving ranks in the top three. Employers want to recruit talented people, “who are quick on their feet and comfortable resolving conflicts with unique solutions.”

  • Critical Thinking vs Problem Solving: What’s the Difference?
  • Top 12 Soft Skills Consulting Firms Look For

Why Problem Solving Skills are a Vital Ingredient in Your Leadership Tool Bag

Duke Ellington  once observed that “A problem is a chance for you to do your best.” If you leverage your problem-solving skills, you can encourage the best performance from your team.

Effective leaders are high-level thinkers and students of human behavior. They find answers to difficult questions because their approach is rooted in strong problem-solving skills. Your own workplace problems can result from conflict, competition for resources, or poor communication. You can harness that energy with dynamic problem-solving skills.

By adapting  problem-led leadership  styles to your work culture, you can identify and proactively solve complex problems in the leadership challenges of your business. You can excite your team and bring unity in the organization. That unity and team spirit taps into everyone’s expertise to solve problems.

Types of leadership problems and their solutions

As a leader, you will face several types of problems. Some examples are problems that:

  • were never faced before: e.g., the recent pandemic and new challenges faced by remote workers—productivity, network security, etc.
  • require multiple solutions to sometimes conflicting goals: e.g., a need to cut costs without having to lay off any employees.
  • are complex: e.g., a solution involving a large number of known or unknown factors—stake holders who have conflicting agendas and questionable loyalty to the entire organization.
  • are dynamic: e.g., a problem with a non-negotiable deadline for solving it

Problem solving can be learned through techniques that involve:

  • looking at the elements of the problem and understanding the dynamics affecting the situation
  • understanding the causes behind the problem
  • knowing how to leverage your advantage as well as understanding what difficulties you are facing
  • evaluating the strengths of your team and their ability to help in solving the problem

Read More: Life Of A Leader: What A Leader Does Everyday To Be Successful

How Leaders Solve Problems

Albert Einstein once said this about problem solving: “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.” You cannot expect problems to go away on their own. Problem solving requires creative and proactive solutions and skills.

You can hone problem-solving skills with the sharp edges of a positive outlook. That approach is the opposite of the energy-draining commitment to unproductive struggle, which reinforces inertia.

When blame and repercussions and saying “oh, no!” poison your team, the classic movie  Apollo 13  line  “Houston, we have a problem”  could be “Oh, no! Houston, we’re gonna die up here!”

In  Apollo 13,  the ground crew found solutions with only the material at hand. You can emulate that approach by saying “yes” to problems. Do that and you will employ, promote, and encourage an approach that focuses on strengths and opportunities. That approach includes:

1.  Identifying the problem : Spend extra time defining problems and avoiding premature, inadequate solutions. The  governing philosophy  here is “A problem well stated is half solved.”

2.  Evaluating the problem:  You can get to the root cause of a problem by:

  • looking for common patterns
  • asking questions—what? who? where? when? and how?
  • avoiding assigning blame and engaging in negativity
  • seeking knowledge of every aspect of the issue in order to move forward

3.  Backing up proposed solutions with data : By using data already accumulated over time, you can bring a persistent problem into perspective. Data analysis often connects the dots and leads to discoveries through common patterns.

4.  Practicing honest communication and transparency.  When you have a clear plan of action to resolve a problem, you can avoid the appearance of having a hidden agenda. The road to trust, respect and confidence from your team is through transparency. Transparency will keep the team invested and motivated in solving the problem.

5.  Breaking down silos : With transparent communication, you also promote an organization without boundaries and the hidden agendas of silos. Silos prolong and support hidden agendas and can be the major cause of most workplace problems—turf wars, fear of speaking out, etc. In sum, silos are team-wrecking mechanisms that make it difficult to solve problems through isolation and blocking communication.

6.  Making solutions actionable through testing : Following brainstorming sessions with those invested in the solution, you should encourage and assist the team to develop lists with logical actions, priorities, and timelines.

Your job as the leader is to assess the costs of those solutions in time and resources. Your next step is to communicate that information back to the team and do any tweaks and necessary adjustments.

7.  Learning from mistakes:  When mistakes and errors occur, you should incorporate the lessons learned as the foundation of further growth. Often, problem solving skills in leadership promote a culture of risk taking, where the results can be more than the sum of the risks.

You can practice positive problem-solving.

You know the value of saying “yes” to problems. That spills over into the value of acquiring positive problem-solving skills. That is where  you shift the focus to the solution  and away from the problem by:

Expecting the unexpected:  You can deal with unexpected situations or unforeseen complications by anticipating the “what-ifs” and adding the “just in case” scenarios. It could be as simple as remaining composed when faced with the unfamiliar and adopting an attitude of concerned detachment.

Accepting the unexpected : Stuff happens, despite your best plans. Feeling frustrated is natural. As a leader, you need to stay positive and focus on the solution. When a leader gets angry, the team runs for cover and takes shelter in keeping their own counsel.

Staying optimistic : When things go awry in your problem-solving task, you should stifle your negative thoughts and bite your tongue when it comes to expressing feelings around others. Avoid comments like “This should have never happened” or “Who’s at fault here?”

Look for a learning experience in the setback. When you do that, you are showing the positive mental attitude that is expected from problem-solving leaders.

Consulting others : It is likely that some colleague or counterpart has gone through similar experiences in solving a difficult problem. You should check with your team, consult experts, or take advantage of professional social media like LinkedIn.

Don’t be afraid to ask for advice and consider multiple solutions and points of view. You are going for a wider perspective, and that perspective can expand your options and lead to solutions you may have overlooked.

Be a critical and creative thinker : The power of the mind is a wonderful and untapped tool. In its critical mode, it recognizes dissonance, inconsistency, and illogical conclusions.

In its creative mode, your mind goes deeper into an amazing subconscious process that generates and inspires options or innovative solutions. Then the mind explores those solutions in its critical role. The secret is to work on  improving your critical thinking skills  and trust the process.

Planning for results : When you find the successful solution, work backwards to discover the best way to make it happen. A problem manifests itself through a history of bad outcomes, which can be articulated and quantified. Focus on the problem, and you can cure the symptoms.

Never Give Up

Some problems defy your best efforts to find solutions. What you might need is fresh eyes and new approaches from unexpected sources. Perhaps some adjustments and compromises are required.

Don’t give up. Always remember the importance of problem solving skills in leadership. Next to your title in the company roster is the implied leadership role of “problem solver.”

Related Articles:

15 Leadership Examples In Business You Should Strive To Follow Suit

  • 10 Essential Tips On How To Become Powerful And Influential In Your Workplace
  • Essential Situational Leadership Books to Guide You to Greater Success
  • Challenge Yourself and Grow With the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership
  • Not Enough Work For Employees: 10 Considerations for Employers
  • 10 Best Ways To Deal With Employees Who Complain About Workload
  • 10 Benefits Of Knowledge Sharing In Organizations All Managers Should Know
  • How To Become a Polymath in 4 Steps

' src=

Jenny Palmer

Founder of Eggcellentwork.com. With over 20 years of experience in HR and various roles in corporate world, Jenny shares tips and advice to help professionals advance in their careers. Her blog is a go-to resource for anyone looking to improve their skills, land their dream job, or make a career change.

Further Reading...

leadership examples in business

7 Helpful Ways to Address Lack of Professionalism in the Workplace 

examples of micromanagement

12 Examples Of Micromanagement At Work [with Infographic]  

No comments, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

How To Quit An Internship Early On Good Terms

15 insanely useful physical productivity tools you wish you had sooner.

why is problem solving important for leaders

  • Virtual + Live Programs
  • TCL Program
  • Member Benefits
  • Resource Library
  • Event Calendar
  • 27 Competencies

Problem Solving Ability

Definition: anticipating, analyzing, diagnosing, and resolving problems..

Leaders with an aptitude for problem-solving have the ability to analyze, diagnose and deal with problems effectively. Whether the problem is linear and “tame,” or nonlinear and “wicked,” adept problem solvers have a natural propensity to discover and help lead others to solutions. The leaders of tomorrow must learn to be collaborative problem-solving facilitators, instead of solitary master problem-solvers. Problem-solving ability is a multi-faceted competency that uses other skills discussed throughout the Leaders Are Clear Thinkers section, including conceptual thinking, planning and organization, and creativity. In this section you’ll discover resources and activities to sharpen your problem-solving skills.

Join our community  to learn more about problem-solving skills, and to access resources and activities to help you along the way. 

Problem Solving Ability Coaching Guide

Leaders with an aptitude for problem-solving have the ability to analyze, diagnose and deal with problems effectively.

How to Teach Your Organization to Respond Quickly to Opportunity

By Dr. Evans Baiya • 4 min read

It is imperative that every business leader understands how to identify opportunities and can train their team members to do the same.

A Different Approach to Strategy

For authors Dr. Timothy Waema, Ron Price, and Dr. Evans Baiya, strategy is only one part of the work they do for clients across the globe.

The Complete Leader Audio Book: Problem Solving Ability (Part 1.6)

By Ron Price • 18 min

Ideas to Get Better at Problem Solving Ability

Want to improve your Problem Solving Ability skills? Check out this graphic for a variety of ideas that you can start implementing right away to improve your sc

Collaborating Across the Globe

We all did a little something different during our extended time at home during the early days of the pandemic.

The Elements of Collaboration

By Dr. Francis Eberle • 4 min read

These days we hear and read a lot about collaboration. Organizations say they value collaboration, and teams want more of it.

How to Strategize for Disruption

The idea of creating a resilient strategy seems to come up in conversation again and again these days.

Is Communication Sabotaging Your Ability to Innovate?

By Dr. Evans Baiya

Avoid these four communications landmines as you navigate the stages of innovation.

Seven Ways to Remove Obstacles

By Jalene Case • 4 min read

You can have well-planned, daring, or exciting goals and still get knocked off track. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee it.

Reframing ‘The Great Resignation’ As ‘The Great Opportunity’

By Dr. Francis Eberle

Asking what to do about the “Great Resignation” is the wrong question right now. A better question is, “How can we benefit from this shift?

Create a Team of Master Problem Solvers

Problem-solving is an essential skill as an innovator. If problems stump your employees, how can your organization ever innovate for customers?

why is problem solving important for leaders

Problem Solving 101 for Managers: 5 Essential Skills and Tips

Understanding problem solving, the 5 essential skills for effective problem solving, tips for successful problem solving, case studies of successful problem solving in the business world, developing your problem-solving skills and mindset as a manager.

Other Related Blogs

What is problem solving for managers?

The importance of problem solving for managers, analytical thinking, communication skills, emotional intelligence, creative thinking, adaptability and flexibility.

  • How Should A Manager Shield Their Team From Office Politics?
  • 5 Simple Steps Of Effective Resource Allocation For Managers
  • What Is AI-based Leadership Coaching? How Does It Work?
  • 6 Steps to Effective Performance Management Plans
  • 12 Decision Making Types Smart Managers Use
  • Learning and Development Trends 2023 Every Team Manager Needs to Know
  • 5 Common Team Performance Issues And How To Defeat Them Easily
  • Understand Who Is A Passionate Employee: With 6 Ways To Foster Them
  • Mastering the Cycle of Performance Management: A Comprehensive Guide
  • Decoding the difference between a manager and a leader: A comprehensive guide

Brainstorm Possible Solutions

Evaluate and choose the best solution, monitor the progress of implemented solutions, learn from the outcome and make adjustments.

why is problem solving important for leaders

How Amazon used problem-solving Skills to Launch its Amazon Go Stores

The importance of problem-solving in the growth of zoom, the power of collaborative problem solving, practicing computational thinking for better problem solving, test your problem-solving skills, ready to take your problem-solving skills to the next level.

Download our free toolkit on developing effective problem-solving skills for managers to get started today!

Download Now

What are strong problem solving skills?

What are problem-solving skills of leaders, why problem-solving is important for managers.

conflict mediation

Top 15 Tips for Effective Conflict Mediation at Work

Top 10 games for negotiation skills to make you a better leader, manager effectiveness: a complete guide for managers in 2023, 5 proven ways managers can build collaboration in a team.

why is problem solving important for leaders

5 whys

Worawut/Adobe Stock

By Jill Babcock Leaders Staff

Jill Babcock

Jill Babcock

Personal Development Writer

Jillian Babcock is a personal development writer for Leaders Media. Previously, she was a senior content writer at Ancient Nutrition,...

Learn about our editorial policy

Aug 8, 2023

Reviewed by Hannah L. Miller

why is problem solving important for leaders

Hannah L. Miller

Senior Editor

Hannah L. Miller, MA, is the senior editor for Leaders Media. Since graduating with her Master of Arts in 2015,...

The Power of the Five Whys: Drilling Down to Effectively Problem-Solve

What is the “5 whys” method, the power of asking “why”, when the 5 whys should be used, how to utilize the 5 whys technique, five whys examples, other ways of improving problem-solving.

It’s a fact of life that things don’t always go according to plan. When facing mistakes or challenges, asking “why”—especially if you do it repeatedly—can help uncover deeper layers of understanding so you can identify potential solutions.

The question “why” can be used in problem-solving as a powerful technique that helps us dig deeper, challenge assumptions, and think critically. After all, if you’re not sure why a problem exists in the first place, it’s very difficult to solve it.

The “Five Whys” method (also called “5 Whys Root Cause Analysis”) can specifically help in examining beliefs, behaviors, and patterns to shine a light on areas for improvement. The Five Whys have other benefits too, including encouraging collaboration and communication since this strategy promotes open dialogue among team members or partners. It also helps generate effective and lasting solutions that can prevent similar issues from resurfacing in the future.

In this article, learn how to use the Five Whys to save yourself or your company from wasting time and money and to address important issues at their source before they escalate.

The “Five Whys” is a technique commonly used in problem-solving to find the root causes of problems . This type of analysis can be applied to various situations, including within companies and relationships, to gain deeper insights and understandings of challenges and obstacles. The method involves “drilling down” by repeatedly asking “why”—typically five times or more—to get to the underlying causes or motivations behind a particular issue. Overall, it’s a way to figure out causes and effects related to a situation so that solutions can be uncovered.

“Effective problem solving can help organizations improve in every area of their business, including product quality, client satisfaction, and finances.” Jamie Birt , Career Coach

Here are a few reasons why asking “why,” or practicing the Five Whys, is important in problem-solving:

  • Identifies underlying issues and root causes: Repeatedly asking “why” helps peel back the layers of a problem to get closer to the heart of what’s not working well. The goal is to define the real issue at hand to address its underlying causes. Understanding root causes is crucial because it enables you to address issues at their source rather than simply dealing with surface-level effects.
  • Promotes critical thinking: Critical thinking refers to the process of objectively and analytically evaluating information, arguments, or situations. To engage in critical thinking and analysis, we need to ask “why,” usually over and over again. This encourages us to develop a more nuanced understanding of a problem by evaluating different factors, examining relationships, and considering different perspectives. Doing so helps lead to well-reasoned judgments and informed decisions.
  • Uncovers assumptions: The opposite of assuming something is remaining open-minded and curious about it. Albert Einstein once said , “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.” Asking “why” prompts you to challenge preconceived notions you may not even realize you have. Often, we make assumptions about a problem or its causes without having all the information we need. By gaining a fresh perspective, we can consider alternative solutions.
  • Generates insights: The Five Whys can lead to valuable discoveries and potential fixes by uncovering hidden connections. These insights can guide us toward innovative solutions that prevent similar problems from worsening or happening again.
“Curiosity has been identified as a characteristic of high-performing salespeople, and having a tool and system that fosters curiosity in your team is extremely helpful.” Alexander Young, Forbes

Any time a problem needs to be clarified and solved, the Five Whys can help. This flexible technique can be adapted to different situations, including personal and professional ones. For example, it’s useful when there are complications within businesses that are causing a loss of profits or when arguments occur among family members or partners. Eric Ries from Harvard Business Review points out that start-ups can especially benefit from the Five Whys to test and refine procedures, ideas, products, and processes.

To get the most out of the Five Whys, include people with personal knowledge of the problem, processes, and systems involved in the analysis, such as employees and customers. This means that if a leadership team, for example, wants to use the Five Whys to improve customer engagement, actual customers and customer service representatives would be ideal people to include in the discussion. 

Here are examples of situations in which the Five Whys can be utilized:

  • Troubleshooting business processes or operations issues, such as delivery or customer service concerns.
  • Identifying the reasons behind personal challenges or recurring problems, such as disputes between bosses and employees.
  • Analyzing project failures or setbacks, such as missed deadlines, to find underlying causes.
  • Understanding customer complaints or dissatisfaction to improve products or services.
  • Improving communication, teamwork, and client relationships.

Sakichi Toyoda (1867–1930) was a Japanese inventor and industrialist known for his business ventures, including founding the Toyota Motor Corporation. Toyoda is credited with developing the Five Whys method in the 1930s, which he used to support continuous improvement within his companies . 

For example, within Toyota Production System (TPS), key goals included eliminating waste, improving efficiency, and ensuring quality. Toyoda used the Five Whys to identify problems within his company and to find ways to resolve them to improve production and customer satisfaction. He once stated , “By repeating why five times, the nature of the problem as well as its solution becomes clear.”

“The beauty of the [Five Whys] tool is in its simplicity. Not only is it universally applicable, it also ensures that you don’t move to action straight away without fully considering whether the reason you’ve identified really is the cause of the problem.” Think Design

The Five Whys works by drilling down to a main underlying cause. The answer to the first “why” should prompt another “why,” and then the answer to the second “why” should continue to prompt more “whys” until a root cause is identified.

Follow these steps to implement the Five Whys:

1. Identify the Initial Problem: Clearly define the problem you want to address. Be specific, such as by including details that help with the analysis. Make sure to clearly articulate the issue by breaking it down into smaller components to ensure everyone involved has a thorough understanding of the situation.

2. Ask “Why?”: Start by asking why the problem occurred. Answer your own question. The answer becomes the basis for the next “why” question.

3. Repeat the Process Five or More Times: Continue asking “why” about the previous answer, iterating at least five times or until you reach a point where the root cause of the problem becomes apparent.

4. Analyze and Take Action: Once you have identified the root cause, analyze potential solutions and take appropriate action.

Here’s a template that you can use to make the process simple:

Problem Statement: (One sentence description of the main problem)

  • Why is the problem happening? (Insert answer)
  • Why is the answer above happening? (Insert answer)

Root Cause(s) 

To test if the root cause is correct, ask yourself the following: “If you removed this root cause, would this problem be resolved?”

Potential Solutions:

List one or more ways you can resolve the root cause of the problem.

The Five Whys method is not a rigid rule but rather a flexible framework that can be adjusted based on the complexity of the problem. You may need to ask “why” only three times or more than five times, such as 7 to 9 times, to nail down the main underlying cause. It’s not the exact amount of “whys” you ask that matters, more so that you’re really investigating the situation and getting to the root of the issue.

Here are two examples of how the Five Whys technique can be used to problem-solve:

Example 1: Machine Breakdown

  • Problem Statement: A machine in a manufacturing facility keeps breaking down.
  • Why did the machine break down? The motor overheated.
  • Why did the motor overheat? The cooling system failed.
  • Why did the cooling system fail? The coolant pump malfunctioned.
  • Why did the coolant pump malfunction? It wasn’t properly maintained.
  • Why wasn’t the coolant pump properly maintained? There was no regular maintenance schedule in place.
  • Root Cause: The lack of a regular maintenance schedule led to the coolant pump malfunction and subsequent machine breakdown.
  • Solution: Implement a scheduled maintenance program for all machines to ensure proper upkeep and prevent breakdowns.

Example 2: Orders Not Being Fulfilled On Time

  • Problem Statement: The order fulfillment process in an e-commerce company is experiencing delays.
  • Why are there delays in the order fulfillment process? The warehouse staff is spending excessive time searching for products.
  • Why are they spending excessive time searching for products? The products are not organized efficiently in the warehouse.
  • Why are the products not organized efficiently? There is no standardized labeling system for product placement.
  • Why is there no standardized labeling system? The inventory management software does not support it.
  • Why doesn’t the inventory management software support a labeling system? The current software version is outdated and lacks the necessary features.
  • Root Cause: The use of outdated inventory management software lacking labeling functionality leads to inefficient product organization and delays in the order fulfillment process.
  • Solution: Upgrade the inventory management software to a newer version that supports a standardized labeling system, improving product organization and streamlining the order fulfillment process.
“Great leaders are, at their core, great problem-solvers. They take proactive measures to avoid conflicts and address issues when they arise.” Alison Griswold , Business and Economics Writer

Problem-solving is a skill that can be developed and improved over time. The Five Whys method is most effective when used in conjunction with other problem-solving tools and when utilized in a collaborative environment that encourages open communication and a willingness to honestly explore underlying causes. For the method to work well, “radical candor” needs to be utilized, and constructive feedback needs to be accepted.

Here are other strategies to assist in problem-solving, most of which can be used alongside the Five Whys:

  • Gather and analyze information: Collect relevant data, facts, and information related to the problem. This could involve conducting research, talking to experts, or analyzing past experiences. Examine the information you’ve gathered and identify patterns, connections, and potential causes of the problem. Look for underlying factors and consider both the immediate and long-term implications.
  • Have a brainstorming session: Collaborate with colleagues, seek advice from experts, or gather input from stakeholders. Different perspectives can bring fresh ideas. Gather a group of teammates and get out a whiteboard and a marker. Create a list of opportunities or problems and potential solutions. Encourage creativity and think outside the box. Consider different perspectives and approaches.
  • Draw a cause-and-effect diagram: Make a chart with three columns, one each for challenges, causes, and effects. Use this to come up with solutions, then assess the pros and cons of each potential solution by considering the feasibility, potential risks, and benefits associated with each option. 
  • Develop an action plan: Once you’ve selected the best solution(s), create a detailed action plan. Define the steps required to implement the solution, set timelines, and then track your progress.

Want to learn more about problem-solving using critical thinking? Check out this article:

Use Critical Thinking Skills to Excel at Problem-Solving

Leaders Media has established sourcing guidelines and relies on relevant, and credible sources for the data, facts, and expert insights and analysis we reference. You can learn more about our mission, ethics, and how we cite sources in our editorial policy .

  • American Institute of Physics. Albert Einstein Image and Impact . History Exhibit. https://history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/ae77.htm
  • Indeed. 5 Whys Example: A Powerful Problem-Solving Tool for Career Development. Indeed Career Guide. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/5-whys-example
  • Entrepreneur. 3 Steps to Creating a Culture of Problem Solvers . Entrepreneur – Leadership. https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/3-steps-to-creating-a-culture-of-problem-solvers/436071
  • Harvard Business Review. (2010, April). The Five Whys for Startups. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2010/04/the-five-whys-for-startups
  • Forbes. (2021, June 7). Understanding The Five Whys: How To Successfully Integrate This Tool Into Your Business . Forbes – Entrepreneurs. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2021/06/07/understanding-the-five-whys-how-to-successfully-integrate-this-tool-into-your-business/?sh=5eda43675c18
  • Think Design. Five Whys: Get to the Root of Any Problem Quickly. Think Design – User Design Research. https://think.design/user-design-research/five-whys
  • Business Insider. (2013, November). The Problem-Solving Tactics of Great Leaders. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/problem-solving-tactics-of-great-leaders-2013-11

Search Leaders.com

Advertisement

Advertisement

Educational leaders’ problem-solving for educational improvement: Belief validity testing in conversations

  • Open access
  • Published: 01 October 2021
  • Volume 24 , pages 133–181, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

  • Claire Sinnema   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6707-6726 1 ,
  • Frauke Meyer 1 ,
  • Deidre Le Fevre 1 ,
  • Hamish Chalmers 1 &
  • Viviane Robinson 1  

12k Accesses

6 Citations

21 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Educational leaders’ effectiveness in solving problems is vital to school and system-level efforts to address macrosystem problems of educational inequity and social injustice. Leaders’ problem-solving conversation attempts are typically influenced by three types of beliefs—beliefs about the nature of the problem, about what causes it, and about how to solve it. Effective problem solving demands testing the validity of these beliefs—the focus of our investigation. We analyzed 43 conversations between leaders and staff about equity related problems including teaching effectiveness. We first determined the types of beliefs held and the validity testing behaviors employed drawing on fine-grained coding frameworks. The quantification of these allowed us to use cross tabs and chi-square tests of independence to explore the relationship between leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors (those identified as more routine or more robust, and those relating to both advocacy and inquiry) and belief type. Leaders tended to avoid discussion of problem causes, advocate more than inquire, bypass disagreements, and rarely explore logic between solutions and problem causes. There was a significant relationship between belief type and the likelihood that leaders will test the validity of those beliefs—beliefs about problem causes were the least likely to be tested. The patterns found here are likely to impact whether micro and mesosystem problems, and ultimately exo and macrosystem problems, are solved. Capability building in belief validity testing is vital for leadership professional learning to ensure curriculum, social justice and equity policy aspirations are realized in practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

why is problem solving important for leaders

Teachers’ Beliefs Shift Across Year-Long Professional Development: ENA Graphs Transformation of Privately Held Beliefs Over Time

why is problem solving important for leaders

Addressing inequity and underachievement: Intervening to improve middle leaders’problem-solving conversations

Jacqueline Margaret Patuawa, Claire Sinnema, … Tong Zhu

why is problem solving important for leaders

Teaching Testable Explanations and Putting Them into Practice

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

This study examines the extent to which leaders, in their conversations with others, test rather than assume the validity of their own and others’ beliefs about the nature, causes of, and solutions to problems of teaching and learning that arise in their sphere of responsibility. We define a problem as a gap between the current and desired state, plus the demand that the gap be reduced (Robinson, 1993 ). We position this focus within the broader context of educational change, and educational improvement in particular, since effective discussion of such problems is central to improvement and vital for addressing issues of educational equity and social justice.

Educational improvement and leaders’ role in problem solving

Educational leaders work in a discretionary problem-solving space. Ball ( 2018 ) describes discretionary spaces as the micro level practices of the teacher. It is imperative to attend to what happens in these spaces because the specific talk and actions that occur in particular moments (for example, what the teacher says or does when one student responds in a particular way to his or her question) impact all participants in the classroom and shape macro level educational issues including legacies of racism, oppression, and marginalization of particular groups of students. A parallel exists, we argue, for leaders’ problem solving—how capable leaders are at dealing with micro-level problems in the conversational moment impacts whether a school or network achieves its improvement goals. For example, how a leader deals with problems with a particular teacher or with a particular student or group of students is subtly but strongly related to the solving of equity problems at the exo and macro levels. Problem solving effectiveness is also related to challenges in the realization of curriculum reform aspirations, including curriculum reform depth, spread, reach, and pace (Sinnema & Stoll, 2020b ).

The conversations leaders have with others in their schools in their efforts to solve educational problems are situated in a broader environment which they both influence and are influenced by. We draw here on Bronfonbrenner’s ( 1992 ) ecological systems theory to construct a nested model of educational problem solving (see Fig.  1 ). Bronfenbrenner focused on the environment around children, and set out five interrelated systems that he professed influence a child’s development. We propose that these systems can also be used to understand another type of learner—educators, including leaders and teachers—in the context of educational problem solving.

figure 1

Nested model of educational problem solving

Bronfenbrenner’s ( 1977 ) microsystem sets out the immediate environment, parents, siblings, teachers, and peers as influencers of and influenced by children. We propose the micro system for educators to include those they have direct contact with including their students, other teachers in their classroom and school, the school board, and the parent community. Bronfenbrenner’s meso system referred to the interactions between a child’s microsystems. In the same way, when foregrounding the ecological system around educators, we suggest attention to the problems that occur in the interactions between students, teachers, school leaders, their boards, and communities. In the exo system, Bronfenbrenner directs attention to other social structures (formal and informal), which do not themselves contain the child, but indirectly influence them as they affect one of the microsystems. In the same way, we suggest educational ministries, departments and agencies function to influence educators. The macro system as theorized by Bronfenbrenner focuses on how child development is influenced by cultural elements established in society, including prevalent beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions. In our model, we recognise how such cultural elements of Bronfenbrenner’s macro system also relate to educators in that dominant and pervasive beliefs, attitudes and perceptions create and perpetuate educational problems, including those relating to educational inequity, bias, racism, social injustice, and underachievement. The chronosystem, as Bronfenbrenner describes, shows the role of environmental changes across a lifetime, which influences development. In a similar way, educators′ professional transitions and professional milestones influence and are influenced by other system levels, and in the context of our work, their problem solving approaches.

Leaders’ effectiveness in discussions about problems related to the micro and mesosystem contributes greatly to the success of exosystem reform efforts, and those efforts, in turn, influence the beliefs, attitudes, and ideologies of the macrosystem. As Fig.  1 shows, improvement goals (indicated by the arrows moving from the current to a desired state) in the exo or macrosystem are unlikely to be achieved without associated improvement in the micro and mesosystem involving students, teachers, and groups of teachers, schools and their boards and parent communities. Similarly, the level of improvement in the macro and exosystems is limited by the extent to which more improvement goals at the micro and mesosystem are achieved through solving problems relating to students’ experience and school and classroom practices including curriculum, teaching, and assessment. As well as drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, our nested model of problem solving draws on problem solving theory to draw attention to how gaps between current and desired states at each of the system levels also influence each other (Newell & Simon, 1972 ). Efforts to solve problems in any one system (to move from current state toward a more desired state) are supported by similar moves at other interrelated systems. For example, the success of a teacher seeking to solve a curriculum problem (demand from parents to focus on core knowledge in traditional learning domains, for example)—a problem related to the microsystem and mesosystem—will be influenced by how similar problems are recognised, attended to, and solved by those in the ministries, departments and agencies in the exosystem.

In considering the role of educational leaders in this nested model of problem solving, we take a capability perspective (Mumford et al., 2000 ) rather than a leadership style perspective (Bedell-Avers et al., 2008 ). School leaders (including those with formal and informal leadership positions) require particular capabilities if they are to enact ambitious policies and solve complex problems related to enhancing equity for marginalized and disadvantaged groups of students (Mavrogordato & White, 2020 ). Too often, micro and mesosystem problems remain unsolved which is problematic not only for those directly involved, but also for the resolution of the related exo and macrosystem problems. The ill-structured nature of the problems school leaders face, and the social nature of the problem-solving process, contribute to the ineffectiveness of leaders’ problem-solving efforts and the persistence of important microsystem and mesosystem problems in schools.

Ill-structured problems

The problems that leaders need to solve are typically ill-structured rather than clearly defined, complex rather that than straight-forward, and adaptive rather than routine challenges (Bedell-Avers et al., 2008 ; Heifetz et al., 2009 ; Leithwood & Stager, 1989 ; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992 , 1995 ; Mumford & Connelly, 1991 ; Mumford et al., 2000 ; Zaccaro et al., 2000 ). As Mumford and Connelly explain, “even if their problems are not totally unprecedented, leaders are, […] likely to be grappling with unique problems for which there is no clear-cut predefined solution” (Mumford & Connelly, 1991 , p. 294). Most such problems are difficult to solve because they can be construed in various ways and lack clear criteria for what counts as a good solution. Mumford et al. ( 2000 ) highlight the particular difficulties in solving ill-structured problems with regard to accessing, evaluating and using relevant information:

Not only is it difficult in many organizational settings for leaders to say exactly what the problem is, it may not be clear exactly what information should be brought to bear on the problem. There is a plethora of available information in complex organizational systems, only some of which is relevant to the problem. Further, it may be difficult to obtain accurate, timely information and identify key diagnostic information. As a result, leaders must actively seek and carefully evaluate information bearing on potential problems and goal attainment. (p. 14)

Problems in schools are complex. Each single problem can comprise multiple educational dimensions (learners, learning, curriculum, teaching, assessment) as well as relational, organizational, psychological, social, cultural, and political dimensions. In response to a teaching problem, for example, a single right or wrong answer is almost never at play; there are typically countless possible ‘responses’ to the problem of how to teach effectively in any given situation.

Problem solving as socially situated

Educational leaders’ problem solving is typically social because multiple people are usually involved in defining, explaining, and solving any given problem (Mumford et al., 2000 ). When there are multiple parties invested in addressing a problem, they typically hold diverse perspectives on how to describe (frame, perceive, and communicate about problems), explain (identify causes which lead to the problem), and solve the problem. Argyris and Schön ( 1974 ) argue that effective leaders must manage the complexity of integrating multiple and diverse perspectives, not only because all parties need to be internally committed to solutions, but also because quality solutions rely on a wide range of perspectives and evidence. Somewhat paradoxically, while the multiple perspectives involved in social problem solving add to their inherent complexity, these perspectives are a resource for educational change, and for the development of more effective solutions (Argyris & Schön, 1974 ). The social nature of problem solving requires high trust so participants can provide relevant, accurate, and timely information (rather than distort or withhold it), recognize their interdependence, and avoid controlling others. In high trust relationships, as Zand’s early work in this field established, “there is less socially generated uncertainty and problems are solved more effectively” (Zand, 1972 , p. 238).

Leaders’ capabilities in problem solving

Leadership research has established the centrality of capability in problem solving to leadership effectiveness generally (Marcy & Mumford, 2010 ; Mumford et al., 2000 , 2007 ) and to educational leadership in particular. Leithwood and Stager ( 1989 ), for example, consider “administrator’s problem-solving processes as crucial to an understanding of why principals act as they do and why some principals are more effective than others” (p. 127). Similarly, Robinson ( 1995 , 2001 , 2010 ) positions the ability to solve complex problems as central to all other dimensions of effective educational leadership. Unsurprisingly, problem solving is often prominent in standards for school leaders/leadership and is included in tools for the assessment of school leadership (Goldring et al., 2009 ). Furthermore, its importance is heightened given the increasing demand and complexity in standards for teaching (Sinnema, Meyer & Aitken, 2016) and the trend toward leadership across networks of schools (Sinnema, Daly, Liou, & Rodway, 2020a ) and the added complexity of such problem solving where a system perspective is necessary.

Empirical research on leaders’ practice has revealed that there is a need for capability building in problem solving (Le Fevre et al., 2015 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ; Sinnema et al., 2013 ; Sinnema et al., 2016 ; Smith, 1997 ; Spillane et al., 2009 ; Timperley & Robinson, 1998 ; Zaccaro et al., 2000 ). Some studies have compared the capability of leaders with varying experience. For example, Leithwood and Stager ( 1989 ) noted differences in problem solving approaches between novice and expert principals when responding to problem scenarios, particularly when the scenarios described ill-structured problems. Principals classified as ‘experts’ were more likely to collect information rather than make assumptions, and perceived unstructured problems to be manageable, whereas typical principals found these problems stressful. Expert principals also consulted extensively to get relevant information and find ways to deal with constraints. In contrast, novice principals consulted less frequently and tended to see constraints as obstacles (Leithwood & Stager, 1989 ). Allison and Allison ( 1993 ) reported that while experienced principals were better than novices at developing abstract problem-solving goals, they were less interested in the detail of how they would pursue these goals. Similar differences were found in Spillane et al.’s ( 2009 ) work that found expert principals to be better at interpreting problems and reflecting on their own actions compared with aspiring principals. More recent work (Sinnema et al., 2021 ) highlights that educators perceptions of discussion quality is positively associated with both new learning for the educator (learning that influences their practice) and improved practice (practices that reach students)—the more robust and helpful educators report their professional discussion to be, the more likely they are to report improvement in their practice. This supports the demand for quality conversation in educational teams.

Solving problems related to teaching and learning that occur in the micro or mesosystem usually requires conversations that demand high levels of interpersonal skill. Skill development is important because leaders tend to have difficulty inquiring deeply into the viewpoints of others (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015 ; Le Fevre et al., 2015 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ). In a close analysis of 43 conversation transcripts, Le Fevre et al. ( 2015 ) showed that when leaders anticipated or encountered diverse views, they tended to ask leading or loaded rather than genuine questions. This pattern was explained by their judgmental thinking, and their desire to avoid negative emotion and stay in control of the conversation. In a related study of leaders’ conversations, a considerable difference was found between the way educational leaders described their problem before and during the conversation with those involved (Sinnema et al., 2013 ). Prior to the conversation, privately, they tended to describe their problem as more serious and more urgent than they did in the conversation they held later with the person concerned.

One of the reasons for the mismatch between their private descriptions and public disclosures was the judgmental framing of their beliefs about the other party’s intentions, attitudes, and/or motivations (Peeters & Robinson, 2015 ). If leaders are not willing or able to reframe such privately-held beliefs in a more respectful manner, they will avoid addressing problems through fear of provoking negative emotion, and neither party will be able to critique the reasoning that leads to the belief in question (Robinson et al., 2020 ). When that happens, beliefs based on faulty reasoning may prevail, problem solutions may be based only on that which is discussable, and the problem may persist.

A model of effective problem-solving conversations

We present below a normative model of effective problem-solving conversations (Fig.  2 ) in which testing the validity of relevant beliefs plays a central role. Leaders test their beliefs about a problem when they draw on a set of validity testing behaviors and enact those behaviors, through their inquiry and advocacy, in ways that are consistent with the three interpersonal values included in the model. The model proposes that these processes increase the effectiveness of social problem solving, with effectiveness understood as progressing the task of solving the problem while maintaining or improving the leader’s relationship with those involved. In formulating this model, we drew on the previously discussed research on problem solving and theories of interpersonal and organisational effectiveness.

figure 2

Model of effective problem-solving conversations

The role of beliefs in problem solving

Beliefs are important in the context of problem solving because they shape decisions about what constitutes a problem and how it can be explained and resolved. Beliefs link the object of the belief (e.g., a teacher’s planning) to some attribute (e.g., copied from the internet). In the context of school problems these attributes are usually tightly linked to a negative evaluation of the object of the belief (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975 ). Problem solving, therefore, requires explicit attention by leaders to the validity of the information on which their own and others’ beliefs are based. The model draws on the work of Mumford et al. ( 2000 ) by highlighting three types of beliefs that are central to how people solve problems—beliefs about whether and why a situation is problematic (we refer to these as problem description beliefs); beliefs about the precursors of the problem situation (we refer to these as problem explanation beliefs); and beliefs about strategies which could, would, or should improve the situation (we refer to these as problem solution beliefs). With regard to problem explanation beliefs, it is important that attention is not limited to surface level factors, but also encompasses consideration of deeper related issues in the broader social context and how they contribute to any given problem.

The role of values in problem-solving conversations

Figure  2 proposes that problem solving effectiveness is increased when leaders’ validity testing behaviors are consistent with three values—respecting the views of others, seeking to maximize validity of their own and others’ beliefs, and building internal commitment to decisions reached. The inclusion of these three values in the model means that our validity testing behaviors must be conceptualized and measured in ways that capture their interpersonal (respect and internal commitment) and epistemic (valid information) underpinnings. Without this conceptual underpinning, it is likely to be difficult to identify the validity testing behaviors that are associated with effectiveness. For example, the act of seeking agreement can be done in a coercive or a respectful manner, so it is important to define and measure this behavior in ways that distinguish between the two. How this and similar distinctions were accomplished is described in the subsequent section on the five validity testing behaviors.

The three values in Fig.  2 are based on the theories and practice of interpersonal and organizational effectiveness developed by Argyris and Schön ( 1974 , 1978 , 1996 ) and applied more recently in a range of educational leadership research contexts (Hannah et al., 2018 ; Patuawa et al., 2021 ; Sinnema et al., 2021a ). We have drawn on the work of Argyris and Schön because their theories explain the dilemma many leaders experience between the two components of problem solving effectiveness and indicate how that dilemma can be avoided or resolved.

Seeking to maximize the validity of information is important because leaders’ beliefs have powerful consequences for the lives and learning of teachers and students and can limit or support educational change efforts. Leaders who behave consistently with the validity of information value are truth seekers rather than truth claimers in that they are open-minded and thus more attentive to the information that disconfirms rather than confirms their beliefs. Rather than assuming the validity of their beliefs and trying to impose them on others, their stance is one of seeking to detect and correct errors in their own and others′ thinking (Robinson, 2017 ).

The value of respect is closely linked to the value of maximizing the validity of information. Leaders increase validity by listening carefully to the views of others, especially if those views differ from their own. Listening carefully requires the accordance of worth and respect, rather than private or public dismissal of views that diverge from or challenge one’s own. If leaders’ conversations are guided by the two values of valid information and respect, then the third value of fostering internal commitment is also likely to be present. Teachers become internally committed to courses of action when their concerns have been listened to and directly addressed as part of the problem-solving process.

The role of validity testing behaviors in problem solving

Figure  2 includes five behaviors designed to test the validity of the three types of belief involved in problem solving. They are: 1) disclosing beliefs; 2) providing grounds; 3) exploring difference; 4) examining logic; and 5) seeking agreement. These behaviors enable leaders to check the validity of their beliefs by engaging in open minded disclosure and discussion of their thinking. While these behaviors are most closely linked to the value of maximizing valid information, the values of respect and internal commitment are also involved in these behaviors. For example, it is respectful to honestly and clearly disclose one’s beliefs about a problem to the other person concerned (advocacy), and to do so in ways that make the grounds for the belief testable and open to revision. It is also respectful to combine advocacy of one’s own beliefs with inquiry into others’ reactions to those beliefs and with inquiry into their own beliefs. When leaders encounter doubts and disagreements, they build internal rather than external commitment by being open minded and genuinely interested in understanding the grounds for them (Spiegel, 2012 ). By listening to and responding directly to others’ concerns, they build internal commitment to the process and outcomes of the problem solving.

Advocacy and inquiry dimensions

Each of the five validity testing behaviors can take the form of a statement (advocacy) or a question (inquiry). A leader’s advocacy contributes to problem solving effectiveness when it communicates his or her beliefs and the grounds for them, in a manner that is consistent with the three values. Such disclosure enables others to understand and critically evaluate the leader’s thinking (Tompkins, 2013 ). Respectful inquiry is equally important, as it invites the other person into the conversation, builds the trust they need for frank disclosure of their views, and signals that diverse views are welcomed. Explicit inquiry for others’ views is particularly important when there is a power imbalance between the parties, and when silence suggests that some are reluctant to disclose their views. Across their careers, leaders tend to rely more heavily on advocating their own views than on genuinely inquiring into the views of others (Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ). It is the combination of advocacy and inquiry behaviors, that enables all parties to collaborate in formulating a more valid understanding of the nature of the problem and of how it may be solved.

The five validity testing behaviors

Disclosing beliefs is the first and most essential validity testing behavior because beliefs cannot be publicly tested, using the subsequent four behaviors, if they are not disclosed. This behavior includes leaders’ advocacy of their own beliefs and their inquiry into others’ beliefs, including reactions to their own beliefs (Peeters & Robinson, 2015 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ).

Honest and respectful disclosure ensures that all the information that is believed to be relevant to the problem, including that which might trigger an emotional reaction, is shared and available for validity testing (Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ; Tjosvold et al., 2005 ). Respectful disclosure has been linked with follower trust. The empirical work of Norman et al. ( 2010 ), for example, showed that leaders who disclose more, and are more transparent in their communication, instill higher levels of trust in those they work with.

Providing grounds , the second validity testing behavior, is concerned with leaders expressing their beliefs in a way that makes the reasoning that led to them testable (advocacy) and invites others to do the same (inquiry). When leaders clearly explain the grounds for their beliefs and invite the other party to critique their relevance or accuracy, the validity or otherwise of the belief becomes more apparent. Both advocacy and inquiry about the grounds for beliefs can lead to a strengthening, revision, or abandonment of the beliefs for either or both parties (Myran & Sutherland, 2016 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ).

Exploring difference is the third validity testing behavior. It is essential because two parties simply disclosing beliefs and the grounds for them is insufficient for arriving at a joint solution, particularly when such disclosure reveals that there are differences in beliefs about the accuracy and implications of the evidence or differences about the soundness of arguments. Exploring difference through advocacy is seen in such behaviors as identifying and signaling differing beliefs and evaluating contrary evidence that underpins those differing beliefs. An inquiry approach to exploring difference (Timperley & Parr, 2005 ) occurs when a leader inquires into the other party’s beliefs about difference, or their response to the leaders’ beliefs about difference.

Exploring differences in beliefs is key to increasing validity in problem solving efforts (Mumford et al., 2007 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Tjosvold et al., 2005 ) because it can lead to more integrative solutions and enhance the commitment from both parties to work with each other in the future (Tjosvold et al., 2005 ). Leaders who are able to engage with diverse beliefs are more likely to detect and challenge any faulty reasoning and consequently improve solution development (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015 ). In contrast, when leaders do not engage with different beliefs, either by not recognizing or by intentionally ignoring them, validity testing is more limited. Such disengagement may be the result of negative attributions about the other person, such as that they are resistant, stubborn, or lazy. Such attributions reduce opportunities for the rigorous public testing that is afforded by the exchange and critical examination of competing views.

Examining logic , the fourth validity testing behavior, highlights the importance of devising a solution that adequately addresses the nature of the problem at hand and its causes. To develop an effective solution both parties must be able to evaluate the logic that links problems to their assumed causes and solutions. This behavior is present when the leader suggests or critiques the relationship between possible causes of and solutions to the identified problem. In its inquiry form, the leader seeks such information from the other party. As Zaccaro et al. ( 2000 ) explain, good problem solvers have skills and expertise in selecting the information to attend to in their effort to “understand the parameters of problems and therefore the dimensions and characteristics of a likely solution” (p. 44–45). These characteristics may include solution timeframes, resource capacities, an emphasis on organizational versus personal goals, and navigation of the degree of risk allowed by the problem approach. Explicitly exploring beliefs is key to ensuring the logic linking problem causes and any proposed solution. Taking account of a potentially complex set of contributing factors when crafting logical solutions, and testing the validity of beliefs about them, is likely to support effective problem solving. This requires what Copland ( 2010 ) describes as a creative process with similarities to clinical reasoning in medicine, in which “the initial framing of the problem is fundamental to the development of a useful solution” (p. 587).

Seeking agreement , the fifth validity testing behavior, signals the importance of warranted agreement about problem beliefs. We use the term ‘warranted’ to make clear that the goal is not merely getting the other party to agree (either that something is a problem, that a particular cause is involved, or that particular actions should be carried out to solve it)—mere agreement is insufficient. Rather, the goal is for warranted agreement whereby both parties have explored and critiqued the beliefs (and their grounds) of the other party in ways that provide a strong basis for the agreement. Both parties must come to some form of agreement on beliefs because successful solution implementation occurs in a social context, in that it relies on the commitment of all parties to carry it out (Mumford et al., 2000 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Tjosvold et al., 2005 ). Where full agreement does not occur, the parties must at least be clear about where agreement/disagreement lies and why.

Testing the validity of beliefs using these five behaviors, and underpinned by the values described earlier is, we argue, necessary if conversations are to lead to two types of improvement—progress on the task (i.e., solving the problem) and improving the relationship between those involved in the conversation (i.e., ensuring those relationship between the problem-solvers is intact and enhanced through the process). We draw attention here to those improvement purposes as distinct from those underpinning work in the educational leadership field that takes a neo-managerialist perspective. The rise of neo-managerialism is argued to redefine school management and leadership along managerial lines and hence contribute to schools that are inequitable, reductionist, and inauthentic (Thrupp & Willmott, 2003 ). School leaders, when impacted by neo-managerialism, need to be (and are seen as) “self-interested, opportunistic innovators and risk-takers who exploit information and situations to produce radical change.” In contrast, the model we propose rejects self-interest. Our model emphasizes on deep respect for the views of others and the relentless pursuit of genuine shared commitment to understanding and solving problems that impact on children and young people through collaborative engagement in joint problem solving. Rather than permitting leaders to exploit others, our model requires leaders to be adept at using both inquiry and advocacy together with listening to both progress the task (solving problems) and simultaneously enhance the relationship between those involved. We position this model of social problem solving effectiveness as a tool for addressing social justice concerns—it intentionally dismisses problem solving approaches that privilege organizational efficiency indicators and ignore the wellbeing of learners and issues of inequity, racism, bias, and social injustice within and beyond educational contexts.

Methodology

The following section outlines the purpose of the study, the participants, and the mixed methods approach to data collection and analysis.

Research purpose

Our prior qualitative research (Robinson et al., 2020 ) involving in-depth case studies of three educational leaders revealed problematic patterns in leaders’ approach to problem-solving conversations: little disclosure of causal beliefs, little public testing of beliefs that might trigger negative emotions, and agreement on solutions that were misaligned with causal beliefs. The present investigation sought to understand if a quantitative methodological approach would reveal similar patterns and examine the relationship between belief types and leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors. Thus, our overarching research question was: to what extent do leaders test the validity of their beliefs in conversations with those directly involved in the analysis and resolution of the problem? Our argument is that while new experiences might motivate change in beliefs (Bonner et al., 2020 ), new insights gained through testing the validity of beliefs is also imperative to change. The sub-questions were:

What is the relative frequency in the types of beliefs leaders hold about problems involving others?

To what extent do leaders employ validity testing behaviors in conversations about those problems?

Are there differential patterns in leaders’ validity testing of the different belief types?

Participants

The participants were 43 students in a graduate course on educational leadership in New Zealand who identified an important on the job problem that they intended to discuss with the person directly involved.

The mixed methods approach

The study took a mixed methods approach using a partially mixed sequential equal status design; (QUAL → QUAN) (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009 ). The five stages of sourcing and analyzing data and making interpretations are summarised in Fig.  3 below and outlined in more detail in the following sections (with reference in brackets to the numbered phases in the figure). We describe the study as partially mixed because, as Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009 explain, in partially mixed methods “both the quantitative and qualitative elements are conducted either concurrently or sequentially in their entirety before being mixed at the data interpretation stage” (p. 267).

figure 3

Overview of mixed methods approach

Stage 1: Qualitative data collection

Three data sources were used to reveal participants’ beliefs about the problem they were seeking to address. The first source was their response to nine open ended items in a questionnaire focused on a real problem the participant had attempted to address but that still required attention (1a). The items were about: the nature and history of the problem; its importance; their own and others’ contribution to it; the causes of the problem; and the approach to and effectiveness of prior attempts to resolve it.

The second source (1b) was the transcript of a real conversation (typically between 5 and 10 minutes duration) the leaders held with the other person involved in the problem, and the third was the leaders’ own annotations of their unspoken thoughts and feelings during the course of the conversation (1c). The transcription was placed in the right-hand column (RHC) of a split page with the annotations recorded at the appropriate place in the left-hand column (LHC). The LHC method was originally developed by Argyris and Schön ( 1974 ) as a way of examining discrepancies between people’s espoused and enacted interpersonal values. Referring to data about each leader’s behavior (as recorded in the transcript of the conversation) and their thoughts (as indicated in the LHC) was important since the model specifies validity testing behaviors that are motivated by the values of respect, valid information, and internal commitment. Since motives cannot be revealed by speech alone, we also needed access to the thoughts that drove their behavior, hence our use of the LHC data collection technique. This approach allowed us to respond to Leithwood and Stager’s ( 1989 ) criticism that much research on effective problem solving gives results that “reveal little or nothing about how actions were selected or created and treat the administrator’s mind as a ‘black box’” (p. 127).

Stage 2: Qualitative analysis

The three stages of qualitative analysis focused on identifying discrete beliefs in the three qualitative data sources, distilling those discrete beliefs into key beliefs, and identifying leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors.

Stage 2a: Analyzing types of beliefs about problems

For this stage, we developed and applied coding rules (see Table 1 ) for the identification of the three types of beliefs in the three sources described earlier—leaders’ questionnaire responses, conversation transcript (RHC), and unexpressed thoughts (LHC). We identified 903 discrete beliefs (utterances or thoughts) from the 43 transcripts, annotations, and questionnaires and recorded these on a spreadsheet (2a). While our model proposes that leaders’ inquiry will surface and test the beliefs of others, we quantify in this study only the leaders’ beliefs.

Stage 2b: Distilling discrete beliefs into key beliefs

Next, we distilled the 903 discrete beliefs into key beliefs (KBs) (2b). This was a complex process and involved multiple iterations across the research team to determine, check, and test the coding rules. The final set of rules for distilling key beliefs were:

Beliefs should be made more succinct in the key belief statement, and key words should be retained as much as possible

Judgment quality (i.e., negative or positive) of the belief needs to be retained in the key belief

Key beliefs should use overarching terms where possible

The meaning and the object of the belief need to stay constant in the key belief

When reducing overlap, the key idea of both beliefs need to be captured in the key beliefs

Distinctive beliefs need to be summarized on their own and not combined with other beliefs

The subject of the belief must be retained in the key belief—own belief versus restated belief of other

All belief statements must be accounted for in key beliefs

These rules were applied to the process of distilling multiple related beliefs into statements of key beliefs as illustrated by the example in the table below (Table 2 ).

Further examples of how the rules were applied are outlined in ' Appendix A '. The number of discrete beliefs for each leader ranged from 7 to 35, with an average of 21, and the number of key beliefs for each leader ranged between 4 and 14, with an average of eight key beliefs. Frequency counts were used to identify any patterns in the types of key beliefs which were held privately (not revealed in the conversation but signalled in the left hand column or questionnaire) or conveyed publicly (in conversation with the other party).

Stage 2c: Analyzing leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors

We then developed and applied coding rules for the five validity testing behaviors (VTB) outlined in our model (disclosing beliefs, providing grounds, exploring difference, examining logic, and seeking agreement). Separate rules were established for the inquiry and advocacy aspects of each VTB, generating ten coding rules in all (Table 3 ).

These rules, summarised in the table below, and outlined more fully in ' Appendix A ', encompassed inclusion and exclusion criteria for the advocacy and inquiry dimensions of each validity testing behavior. For example, the inclusion rule for the VTB of ‘Disclosing Beliefs’ required leaders to disclose their beliefs about the nature, and/or causes, and/or possible solutions to the problem, in ways that were consistent with the three values included in the model. The associated exclusion rule signalled that this criterion was not met if, for example, the leader asked a question in order to steer the other person toward their own views without having ever disclosed their own views, or if they distorted the urgency or seriousness of the problem related to what they had expressed privately. The exclusion rules also noted how thoughts expressed in the left hand column would exclude the verbal utterance from being treated as disclosure—for example if there were contradictions between the right hand (spoken) and left hand column (thoughts), or if the thoughts indicated that the disclosure had been distorted in order to minimise negative emotion.

The coding rules reflected the values of respect and internal commitment in addition to the valid information value that was foregrounded in the analysis. The emphasis on inquiry, for example (into others’ beliefs and/or responses to the beliefs already expressed by the leader), recognised that internal commitment would be impossible if the other party held contrary views that had not been disclosed and discussed. Similarly, the focus on leaders advocating their beliefs, grounds for those beliefs and views about the logic linking solutions to problem causes recognise that it is respectful to make those transparent to another party rather than impose a solution in the absence of such disclosure.

The coding rules were applied to all 43 transcripts and the qualitative analysis was carried out using NVivo 10. A random sample of 10% of the utterances coded to a VTB category was checked independently by two members of the research team following the initial analysis by a third member. Any discrepancies in the coding were resolved, and data were recoded if needed. Descriptive analyses then enabled us to compare the frequency of leaders’ use of the five validity testing behaviors.

Stage 3: Data transformation: From qualitative to quantitative data

We carried out transformation of our data set (Burke et al., 2004 ), from qualitative to quantitative, to allow us to carry out statistical analysis to answer our research questions. The databases that resulted from our data transformation, with text from the qualitative coding along with numeric codes, are detailed next. In database 1, key beliefs were all entered as cases with indications in adjacent columns as to the belief type category they related to, and the source/s of the belief (questionnaire, transcript or unspoken thoughts/feelings). A unique identifier was created for each key belief.

In database 2, each utterance identified as meeting the VTB coding rules were entered in column 1. The broader context of the utterance from the original transcript was then examined to establish the type of belief (description, explanation, or solution) the VTB was being applied to, with this recorded numerically alongside the VTB utterance itself. For example, the following utterance had been coded to indicate that it met the ‘providing grounds’ coding rule, and in this phase it was also coded to indicate that it was in relation to a ‘problem description’ belief type:

“I noticed on the feedback form that a number of students, if I’ve got the numbers right here, um, seven out of ten students in your class said that you don’t normally start the lesson with a ‘Do Now’ or a starter activity.” (case 21)

A third database listed all of the unique identifiers for each leader’s key beliefs (KB) in the first column. Subsequent columns were set up for each of the 10 validity testing codes (the five validity testing behaviors for both inquiry and advocacy). The NVivo coding for the VTBs was then examined, one piece of coding at a time, to identify which key belief the utterance was associated with. Each cell that intersected the appropriate key belief and VTB was increased by one as a VTB utterance was associated with a key belief. Our database included variables for both the frequency of each VTB (the number of instances the behavior was used) and a parallel version with just a dichotomous variable indicating the presence or absence or each VTB. The dichotomous variable was used for our subsequent analysis because multiple utterances indicating a certain validity testing behavior were not deemed to necessarily constitute better quality belief validity testing than one utterance.

Stage 4: Quantitative analysis

The first phase of quantitative analysis involved the calculation of frequency counts for the three belief types (4a). Next, frequencies were calculated for the five validity testing behaviors, and for those behaviors in relation to each belief type (4b).

The final and most complex stage of the quantitative analysis, stages 4c through 4f, involved looking for patterns across the two sets of data created through the prior analyses (belief type and validity testing behaviors) to investigate whether leaders might be more inclined to use certain validity testing behaviors in conjunction with a particular belief type.

Stage 4a: Analyzing for relationships between belief type and VTB

We investigated the relationship between belief type and VTB, first, for all key beliefs. Given initial findings about variability in the frequency of the VTBs, we chose not to use all five VTBs separately in our analysis, but rather the three categories of: 1) None (key beliefs that had no VTB applied to them); 2) VTB—Routine (the sum of VTBs 1 and 2; given those were much more prevalent than others in the case of both advocacy and inquiry); and 3) VTB—Robust (the sum of the VTBs 3, 4 and 5 given these were all much less prevalent than VTBs 1 and 2, again including both advocacy and/or inquiry). Cross tabs were prepared and a chi-square test of independence was performed on the data from all 331 key beliefs.

Stage 4b: Analyzing for relationships between belief type and VTB

Next, because more than half (54.7%, 181) of the 331 key beliefs were not tested by leaders using any one of the VTBs, we analyzed a sub-set of the database, selecting only those key beliefs where leaders had disclosed the belief (using advocacy and/or inquiry). The reason for this was to ensure that any relationships established statistically were not unduly influenced by the data collection procedure which limited the time for the conversation to 10 minutes, during which it would not be feasible to fully disclose and address all key beliefs held by the leader. For this subset we prepared cross tabs and carried out chi-square tests of independence for the 145 key beliefs that leaders had disclosed. We again investigated the relationship between key belief type and VTBs, this time using a VTB variable with two categories: 1) More routine only and 2) More routine and robust.

Stage 4c: Analyzing for relationships between belief type and advocacy/inquiry dimensions of validity testing

Next, we investigated the relationship between key belief type and the advocacy and inquiry dimensions of validity testing. This analysis was to provide insight into whether leaders might be more or less inclined to use certain VTBs for certain types of belief. Specifically, we compared the frequency of utterances about beliefs of all three types for the categories of 1) No advocacy or inquiry, 2) Advocacy only, 3) Inquiry only, and 4) Advocacy and inquiry (4e). Cross tabs were prepared, and a chi-square test of independence was performed on the data from all 331 key beliefs. Finally, we again worked with the subset of 145 key beliefs that had been disclosed, comparing the frequency of utterances coded to 1) Advocacy or inquiry only, or 2) Both advocacy and inquiry (4f).

Below, we highlight findings in relation to the research questions guiding our analysis about: the relative frequency in the types of beliefs leaders hold about problems involving others; the extent to which leaders employ validity testing behaviors in conversations about those problems; and differential patterns in leaders’ validity testing of the different belief types. We make our interpretations based on the statistical analysis and draw on insights from the qualitative analysis to illustrate those results.

Belief types

Leaders’ key beliefs about the problem were evenly distributed between the three belief types, suggesting that when they think about a problem, leaders think, though not necessarily in a systematic way, about the nature of, explanation for, and solutions to their problem (see Table 4 ). These numbers include beliefs that were communicated and also those recorded privately in the questionnaire or in writing on the conversation transcripts.

Patterns in validity testing

The majority of the 331 key beliefs (54.7%, 181) were not tested by leaders using any one of the VTBs, not even the behavior of disclosing the belief. Our analysis of the VTBs that leaders did use (see Table 5 ) shows the wide variation in frequency of use with some, arguably the more robust ones, hardly used at all.

The first pattern was more frequent disclosure of key beliefs than provision of the grounds for them. The lower levels of providing grounds is concerning because it has implications for the likelihood of those in the conversation subsequently reaching agreement and being able to develop solutions logically aligned to the problem (VTB4). The logical solution if it is the time that guided reading takes that is preventing a teacher doing ‘shared book reading’ (as Leader 20 believed to be the case) is quite different to the solution that is logical if in fact the reason is something different, for example uncertainty about how to go about ‘shared book reading’, lack of shared book resources, or a misunderstanding that school policy requires greater time on shared reading.

The second pattern was a tendency for leaders to advocate much more than they inquire— there was more than double the proportion of advocacy than inquiry overall and for some behaviors the difference between advocacy and inquiry was up to seven times greater. This suggests that leaders were more comfortable disclosing their own beliefs, providing the grounds for their own beliefs and expressing their own assumptions about agreement, and less comfortable in inquiring in ways that created space and invited the other person in the conversation to reveal their beliefs.

A third pattern revealed in this analysis was the difference in the ratio of inquiry to advocacy between VTB1 (disclosing beliefs)—a ratio of close to 1:2 and VTB2 (providing grounds)—a ratio of close to 1:7. Leaders are more likely to seek others’ reactions when they disclose their beliefs than when they give their grounds for those beliefs. This might suggest that leaders assume the validity of their own beliefs (and therefore do not see the need to inquire into grounds) or that they do not have the skills to share the grounds associated with the beliefs they hold.

Fourthly, there was an absence of attention to three of the VTBs outlined in our model—in only very few of the 329 validity testing utterances the 43 leaders used were they exploring difference (11 instances), examining logic (4 instances) or seeking agreement (22 instances). In Case 22, for example, the leader claimed that learning intentions should be displayed and understood by children and expressed concern that the teacher was not displaying them, and that her students thus did not understand the purpose of the activities they were doing. While the teacher signaled her disagreement with both of those claims—“I do learning intentions, it’s all in my modelling books I can show them to you if you want” and “I think the children know why they are learning what they are learning”—the fact that there were differences in their beliefs was not explicitly signaled, and the differences were not explored. The conversation went on, with each continuing to assume the accuracy of their own beliefs. They were unable to reach agreement on a solution to the problem because they had not established and explored the lack of agreement about the nature of the problem itself. We presume from these findings, and from our prior qualitative work in this field, that those VTBs are much more difficult, and therefore much less likely to be used than the behaviors of disclosing beliefs and providing grounds.

The relationship between belief type and validity testing behaviors

The relationship between belief type and category of validity testing behavior was significant ( Χ 2 (4) = 61.96,  p  < 0.001). It was notable that problem explanation beliefs were far less likely than problem description or problem solution beliefs to be subject to any validity testing (the validity of more than 80% of PEBs was not tested) and, when they were tested, it was typically with the more routine rather than robust VTBs (see Table 6 ).

Problem explanation beliefs were also most likely to not be tested at all; more than 80% of the problem explanation beliefs were not the focus of any validity testing. Further, problem description beliefs were less likely than problem solution beliefs to be the target of both routine and robust validity testing behaviors—12% of PDBs and 18% of PSBs were tested using both routine and robust VTBs.

Two important assumptions underpin the study reported here. The first is that problems of equity must be solved, not only in the macrosystem and exosystem, but also as they occur in the day to day practices of leaders and teachers in micro and mesosystems. The second is that conversations are the key practice in which problem solving occurs in the micro and mesosystems, and that is why we focused on conversation quality. We focused on validity testing as an indicator of quality by closely analyzing transcripts of conversations between 43 individual leaders and a teacher they were discussing problems with.

Our findings suggest a considerable gap between our normative model of effective problem solving conversations and the practices of our sample of leaders. While beliefs about what problems are, and proposed solutions to them are shared relatively often, rarely is attention given to beliefs about the causes of problems. Further, while leaders do seem to be able to disclose and provide grounds for their beliefs about problems, they do so less often for beliefs about problem cause than other belief types. In addition, the critical validity testing behaviors of exploring difference, examining logic, and seeking agreement are very rare. Learning how to test the validity of beliefs is, therefore, a relevant focus for educational leaders’ goals (Bendikson et al., 2020 ; Meyer et al., 2019 ; Sinnema & Robinson, 2012 ) as well as a means for achieving other goals.

The patterns we found are problematic from the point of view of problem solving in schools generally but are particularly problematic from the point of view of macrosystem problems relating to equity. In New Zealand, for example, the underachievement and attendance issues of Pasifika students is a macrosystem problem that has been the target of many attempts to address through a range of policies and initiatives. Those efforts include a Pasifika Education Plan (Ministry of Education, 2013 ) and a cultural competencies framework for teachers of Pasifika learners—‘Tapasa’ (Ministry of Education, 2018 ) At the level of the mesosystem, many schools have strategic plans and school-wide programmes for interactions seeking to address those issues.

Resolving such equity issues demands that macro and exosystem initiatives are also reflected in the interactions of educators—hence our investigation of leaders’ problem-solving conversations and attention to whether leaders have the skills required to solve problems in conversations that contribute to aspirations in the exo and macrosystem, include of excellence and equity in new and demanding national curricula (Sinnema et al., 2020a ; Sinnema, Stoll, 2020a ). An example of an exosystem framework—the competencies framework for teachers of Pacific students in New Zealand—is useful here. It requires that teachers “establish and maintain collaborative and respectful relationships and professional behaviors that enhance learning and wellbeing for Pasifika learners” (Ministry of Education, 2018 , p. 12). The success of this national framework is influenced by and also influences the success that leaders in school settings have at solving problems in the conversations they have about related micro and mesosystem problems.

To illustrate this point, we draw here on the example of one case from our sample that showed how problem-solving conversation capability is related to the success or otherwise of system level aspirations of this type. In the case of Leader 36, under-developed skill in problem solving talk likely stymied the success of the equity-focused system initiatives. Leader 36 had been alerted by the parents of a Pasifika student that their daughter “feels that she is being unfairly treated, picked on and being made to feel very uncomfortable in the teacher’s class.” In the conversation with Leader 36, the teacher described having established a good relationship with the student, but also having had a range of issues with her including that she was too talkative, that led the teacher to treat her in ways the teacher acknowledged could have made her feel picked on and consequently reluctant to come to school.

The teacher also told the leader that there were issues with uniform irregularities (which the teacher picked on) and general non conformity—“No, she doesn’t [conform]. She often comes with improper footwear, incorrect jacket, comes late to school, she puts make up on, there are quite a few things that aren’t going on correctly….”. The teacher suggested that the student was “drawing the wrong type of attention from me as a teacher, which has had a negative effect on her.” The teacher described to the leader a recent incident:

[The student] had come to class with her hair looking quite shabby so I quietly asked [the student] “Did you wake up late this morning?” and then she but I can’t remember, I made a comment like “it looks like you didn’t take too much interest in yourself.” To me, I thought there was nothing wrong with the comment as it did not happen publicly; it happened in class and I had walked up to her. Following that, [her] Mum sends another email about girls and image and [says] that I am picking on her again. I’m quite baffled as to what is happening here. (case 36)

This troubling example represented a critical discretionary moment. The pattern of belief validity testing identified through our analysis of this case (see Table 7 ), however, mirrors some of the patterns evident in the wider sample.

The leader, like the student’s parents, believed that the teacher had been offensive in her communication with the student and also that the relationship between the teacher and student would be negatively impacted as a result. These two problem description beliefs were disclosed by the leader during her conversation with the teacher. However, while her disclosure of her belief about the problem description involved both advocating the belief, and inquiring into the other’s perception of it, the provision of grounds for the belief involved advocacy only. She reported the basis of the concern (the email from the student’s parents about their daughter feeling unfairly treated, picked on, and uncomfortable in class) but did not explicitly inquire into the grounds. This may be explained in this case through the teacher offering her own account of the situation that matched the parent’s report. Leader 36 also disclosed in her conversation with the teacher, her problem solution key belief that they should hold a restorative meeting between the teacher, the student, and herself.

What Leader 36 did not disclose was her belief about the explanation for the problem—that the teacher did not adequately understand the student personally, or their culture. The problem explanation belief (KB4) that she did inquire into was one the teacher raised—suggesting that the student has “compliance issues” that led the teacher to respond negatively to the student’s communication style—and that the teacher agreed with. The leader did not use any of the more robust but important validity testing behaviors for any of the key beliefs they held, either about problem description, explanation or solutions. And most importantly, this conversation highlights how policies and initiatives developed by those in the macrosystem, aimed at addressing equity issues, can be thwarted through well-intentioned but ultimately unsuccessful efforts of educators as they operate in the micro and mesosystem in what we referred to earlier as a discretionary problem solving space. The teacher’s treatment of the Pasifika student in our example was in stark contrast to the respectful and strong relationships demanded by the exosystem policy, the framework for teachers of Pasifika students. Furthermore, while the leader recognized the problem, issues of culture were avoided—they were not skilled enough in disclosing and testing their beliefs in the course of the conversation to contribute to broader equity concerns. The skill gap resonates with the findings of much prior work in this field (Le Fevre et al., 2015 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ; Sinnema et al., 2013 ; Smith, 1997 ; Spillane et al., 2009 ; Timperley & Robinson, 1998 ; Zaccaro et al., 2000 ), and highlights the importance of leaders, and those working with them in leadership development efforts, to recognize the interactions between the eco-systems outlined in the nested model of problem solving detailed in Fig.  1 .

The reluctance of Leader 36 to disclose and discuss her belief that the teacher misunderstands the student and her culture is important given the wider research evidence about the nature of the beliefs teachers may hold about indigenous and minority learners. The expectations teachers hold for these groups are typically lower and more negative than for white students (Gay, 2005 ; Meissel et al., 2017 ). In evidence from the New Zealand context, Turner et al. ( 2015 ), for example, found expectations to differ according to ethnicity with higher expectations for Asian and European students than for Māori and Pasifika students, even when controlling for achievement, due to troubling teacher beliefs about students’ home backgrounds, motivations, and aspirations. These are just the kind of beliefs that leaders must be able to confront in conversations with their teachers.

We use this example to illustrate both the interrelatedness of problems across the ecosystem, and the urgency of leadership development intervention in this area. Our normative model of effective problem solving conversations (Fig.  2 ), we suggest, provides a useful framework for the design of educational leadership intervention in this area. It shows how validity testing behaviors should embody both advocacy and inquiry and be used to explore not only perceptions of problem descriptions and solutions, but also problem causes. In this way, we hope to offer insights into how the dilemma between trust and accountability (Ehren et al., 2020 ) might be solved through increased interpersonal effectiveness. The combination of inquiry with advocacy also marks this approach out from neo-liberal approaches that emphasize leaders staying in control and predominantly advocating authoritarian perspectives of educational leadership. The interpersonal effectiveness theory that we draw on (Argyris & Schön, 1974 ) positions such unilateral control as ineffective, arguing for a mutual learning alternative. The work of problem solving is, we argue, joint work, requiring shared commitment and control.

Our findings also call for more research explicitly designed to investigate linkages between the systems. Case studies are needed, of macro and exosystem inequity problems backward mapped to initiatives and interactions that occur in schools related to those problems and initiatives. Such research could capture the complex ways in which power plays out “in relation to structural inequalities (of class, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, sexuality, and so forth)” and in relation to “more shifting and fluid inequalities that play out at the symbolic and cultural levels (for example, in ways that construct who “has” potential)” (Burke & Whitty, 2018 , p. 274).

Leadership development in problem solving should be approached in ways that surface and test the validity of leaders’ beliefs, so that they similarly learn to surface and test others’ beliefs in their leadership work. That is important not only from a workforce development point of view, but also from a social justice point of view since leaders’ capabilities in this area are inextricably linked to the success of educational systems in tackling urgent equity concerns.

Allison, D., & Allison, P. (1993). Both ends of a telescope: Experience and expertise in principal problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29 (3), 302–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x93029003005

Article   Google Scholar  

Argyris, C., Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness . Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice . Addison-Wesley.

Google Scholar  

Ball, D. L. (2018). Just dreams and imperatives: the power of teaching in the struggle for public education . New York, NYC: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Bedell-Avers, E., Hunter, S., & Mumford, M. (2008). Conditions of problem-solving and the performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: A comparative experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19 , 89–106.

Bendikson, L., Broadwith, M., Zhu, T., & Meyer, F. (2020). Goal pursuit practices in high schools: hitting the target?. Journal of Educational Administration , 56 (6), 713–728. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2020-0020

Bonner, S. M., Diehl, K., & Trachtman, R. (2020). Teacher belief and agency development in bringing change to scale. Journal of Educational Change, 21 (2), 363–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09360-4

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta, Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues. Jessica Kingsley Publishers

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32 (7), 513–531.

Burke Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research; a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14–26.

Burke, P. J., & Whitty, G. (2018). Equity issues in teaching and teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 93 (3), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2018.1449800

Copland, F. (2010). Causes of tension in post-observation feedback in pre-service teacher training: An alternative view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (3), 466–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.001

Ehren, M., Paterson, A., & Baxter, J. (2020). Accountability and Trust: Two sides of the same coin? Journal of Educational Change, 21 (1), 183–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09352-4

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief An Introduction to Theory and Research. Attitude, Intention and Behavior . Addison-Wesley.

Gay, G. (2005). Politics of multicultural teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56 (3), 221–228.

Goldring, E., Cravens, X., Murphy, J., Porter, A., Elliott, S., & Carson, B. (2009). The evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban disrticts assess leadership? The Elementary School Journal, 110 (1), 19–36.

Hannah, D., Sinnema, C., & Robinson. V. (2018). Theory of action accounts of problem-solving: How a Japanese school communicates student incidents to parents. Management in Education, 33 (2), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020618783809 .

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world . Harvard Business Press.

Le Fevre, D., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2015). The interpersonal challenges of instructional leadership: Principals’ effectiveness in conversations about performance issues. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51 (1), 58–95.

Le Fevre, D., Robinson, V. M. J., & Sinnema, C. (2015). Genuine inquiry: Widely espoused yet rarely enacted. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43 (6), 883–899.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43 (2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1995). Expert problem solving: Evidence from school and district leaders . State University of New York Press.

Leithwood, K., & Stager, M. (1989). Expertise in Principals’ Problem Solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25 (2), 126–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x89025002003

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1992). Improving the problem solving expertise of school administrators. Education and Urban Society, 24 (3), 317–345.

Marcy, R., & Mumford, M. (2010). Leader cognition: Improving leader performance through causal analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (1), 1–19.

Mavrogordato, M., & White, R. (2020). Leveraging policy implementation for social justice: How school leaders shape educational opportunity when implementing policy for English learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56 (1), 3–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18821364

Meissel, K., Meyer, F., Yao, E. S., & Rubie-Davies, C. (2017). Subjectivity of Teacher Judgments: Exploring student characteristics that influence teacher judgments of student ability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65 , 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.021

Meyer, F., Sinnema, C., & Patuawa, J. (2019). Novice principals setting goals for school improvement in New Zealand. School Leadership & Management , 39 (2), 198−221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1473358

Ministry of Education. (2013). Pasifika education plan 2013–2017 Retrieved 9 July from https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Strategies-and-policies/PEPImplementationPlan20132017V2.pdf

Ministry of Education. (2018). Tapasā cultural competencies framework for teachers of Pacific learners . Ministry of Education.

Mumford, M., & Connelly, M. (1991). Leaders as creators: Leaders performance and problem solving in ill-defined domains. Leadership Quarterly, 2 (4), 289–315.

Mumford, M., Friedrich, T., Caughron, J., & Byrne, C. (2007). Leader cognition in real-world settings: How do leaders think about crises? The Leadership Quarterly, 18 , 515–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.002

Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S., Harding, F., Jacobs, T., & Fleishman, E. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (1), 11–35.

Myran, S., & Sutherland, I. (2016). Problem posing in leadership education: using case study to foster more effective problem solving. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 19 (4), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458916664763

Newell, A., & Simon. (1972). Human problem solving . Prentice-Hall.

Norman, S., Avolio, B., & Luthans, B. (2010). The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 , 350–364.

Patuawa, J., Robinson, V., Sinnema, C., & Zhu, T. (2021). Addressing inequity and underachievement: Middle leaders’ effectiveness in problem solving. Leading and Managing , 27 (1), 51–78. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.925220205986712

Peeters, A., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2015). A teacher educator learns how to learn from mistakes: Single and double-loop learning for facilitators of in-service teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 11 (3), 213–227.

Robinson, V. M. J., Meyer, F., Le Fevre, D., & Sinnema, C. (2020). The Quality of Leaders’ Problem-Solving Conversations: truth-seeking or truth-claiming? Leadership and Policy in Schools , 1–22.

Robinson, V. M. J. (1993). Problem-based methodology: Research for the improvement of practice . Pergamon Press.

Robinson, V. M. J. (1995). Organisational learning as organisational problem-solving. Leading & Managing, 1 (1), 63–78.

Robinson, V. M. J. (2001). Organizational learning, organizational problem solving and models of mind. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Kluwer Academic.

Robinson, V. M. J. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities: Empirical findings and methodological challenges. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9 (1), 1–26.

Robinson, V. M. J. (2017). Reduce change to increase improvement . Corwin Press.

Robinson, V. M. J., & Le Fevre, D. (2011). Principals’ capability in challenging conversations: The case of parental complaints. Journal of Educational Administration, 49 (3), 227–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111129046

Sinnema, C., Robinson, V. (2012). Goal setting in principal evaluation: Goal quality and predictors of achievement. Leadership and Policy in schools . 11 (2), 135–167, https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2011.629767

Sinnema, C., Le Fevre, D., Robinson, V. M. J., & Pope, D. (2013). When others’ performance just isn’t good enough: Educational leaders’ framing of concerns in private and public. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12 (4), 301–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2013.857419

Sinnema, C., Ludlow, L. H., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2016a). Educational leadership effectiveness: A rasch analysis. Journal of Educational Administration , 54 (3), 305–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-12-2014-0140

Sinnema, C., Meyer, F., & Aitken, G. (2016b). Capturing the complex, situated, and sctive nature of teaching through inquiry-oriented standards for teaching. Journal of Teacher Education , 68 (1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116668017

Sinnema, C., Daly, A. J., Liou, Y.-h Sinnema, C., Daly, A. J., Liou, Y.-H., & Rodway, J. (2020a). Exploring the communities of learning policy in New Zealand using social network analysis: A case study of leadership, expertise, and networks. International Journal of Educational Research , 99 , 101492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.10.002

Sinnema, C., & Stoll, L. (2020b). Learning for and realising curriculum aspirations through schools as learning organisations. European Journal of Education, 55 , 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12381

Sinnema, C., Nieveen, N., & Priestley, M. (2020c). Successful futures, successful curriculum: What can Wales learn from international curriculum reforms? The Curriculum Journal . https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.17

Sinnema, C., Hannah, D., Finnerty, A., & Daly, A. J. (2021a). A theory of action account of within and across school collaboration: The role of relational trust in collaboration actions and impacts. Journal of Educational Change .

Sinnema, C., Hannah, D., Finnerty, A. et al. (2021b). A theory of action account of an across-school collaboration policy in practice. Journal of Educational Change . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09408-w

Sinnema, C., Liou, Y.-H., Daly, A., Cann, R., & Rodway, J. (2021c). When seekers reap rewards and providers pay a price: The role of relationships and discussion in improving practice in a community of learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107 , 103474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103474

Smith, G. (1997). Managerial problem solving: A problem-centered approach. In C. E. Zsambok & G. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic Decision Making (pp. 371–380). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spiegel, J. (2012). Open-mindedness and intellectual humility. School Field, 10 (1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878512437472

Spillane, J., Weitz White, K., & Stephan, J. (2009). School principal expertise: Putting expert aspiring principal differences in problem solving to the test. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8 , 128–151.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13 , 12–28.

Thrupp, M., & Willmott, R. (2003). Education management in managerialist times: Beyond the textual apologists . Open University Press.

Timperley, H., & Parr, J. M. (2005). Theory competition and the process of change. Journal of Educational Change, 6 (3), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-005-5065-3

Timperley, H. S., & Robinson, V. M. J. (1998). Collegiality in schools: Its nature and implications for problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34 (1), 608–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X980341003

Tjosvold, D., Sun, H., & Wan, P. (2005). Effects of openness, problem solving, and blaming on learning: An experiment in China. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145 (6), 629–644. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.145.6.629-644

Tompkins, T. (2013). Groupthink and the Ladder of Inference : Increasing Effective Decision Making. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning , 8 (2), 84–90.

Turner, H., Rubie-Davies, C. M., & Webber, M. (2015). Teacher expectations, ethnicity and the achievement gap. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50 (1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-015-0004-1

Zaccaro, S., Mumford, M., Connelly, M., Marks, M., & Gilbert, J. (2000). Assessment of leader problem-solving capabilities. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (1), 37–64.

Zand, D. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 , 229–239.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Claire Sinnema, Frauke Meyer, Deidre Le Fevre, Hamish Chalmers & Viviane Robinson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Sinnema .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

See Table 8 .

See Table 9 .

See Table 10 .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sinnema, C., Meyer, F., Le Fevre, D. et al. Educational leaders’ problem-solving for educational improvement: Belief validity testing in conversations. J Educ Change 24 , 133–181 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09437-z

Download citation

Accepted : 29 August 2021

Published : 01 October 2021

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09437-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Educational Change
  • Educational improvement
  • Problem solving
  • Problem-solving conversations
  • Educational leadership
  • Validity testing
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research
  • E-Statements & W-2’s
  • Timecard – Bullhorn Log In
  • Employment Verification

Qualstaff Resources

  • Search Jobs

A Lesson in Leadership: 5 Effective Problem Solving Strategies Used by Great Leaders

  • A Lesson in Leadership: 5…

team - problem solving strategies

No matter how well you run your organization, you are going to encounter problems along the way.

What makes or breaks an organization isn’t the problems they face, but how they handle these problems. This is why as a leader of an organization, it’s very important that you have the right problem solving strategies up your sleeve.

What do you need to know?

Check out this guide to discover the top problem-solving strategies used by great leaders.

1. Communicate Transparently

If you want to solve problems effectively, you need to be a transparent communicator .

This means that everyone needs to feel free to express their point of view and concerns. If people are afraid to speak up, then it can take a lot longer to get to the heart of the matter.

In order for transparent communication to happen, as a leader, you need to make sure you facilitate an environment that allows for open dialogue. Too many times, employees of organizations are afraid to speak up because they’re worried about losing their job or being exposed for doing something wrong.

Therefore, problem-solving effectively means creating an environment where everyone is comfortable discussing and tackling the problem in a collaborative manner .

2. Stop Finger Pointing

When a problem arises, it can be all too easy to play the blame game. But, doing this isn’t going to get you anywhere.

If your team is truly a team, then this means that everyone is working together toward one common goal. So, when one person messes up, this means that the whole team messes up.

When you point your finger at the one person who messes up, you’re just being a part of the problem. Instead, you want to be a part of the solution.

While you should teach everyone to take responsibility for their actions, when something happens, it’s important to work together to solve it.

3. Think Positive

In order to be an effective problem solver, you need to always think positively .

If an issue occurs and you come at it with a negative mindset, there’s no way you’re going to find a suitable solution. By having a positive perspective on things, you’ll be able to transfer that energy to your team members and motivate them to solve the problem.

4. Be Open-Minded

Don’t be that leader who locks themselves in their office when a problem occurs.

Problems often occur due to a break in communication. By locking yourself in your office to think about the problem, you’re only further straining your team’s communication.

The best thing to do is to discuss your ideas to solve the problem with your team members. And, you should encourage your team members to share their problem-solving ideas as well.

Problem Solving Strategies: Are You Ready to Start Solving?

Now that you have these problem solving strategies handy, you should be better equipped the next time a problem arises in your organization.

For more ways to improve your organization, be sure to check out this guide to learn how to engage your millennial candidates.

Related posts

HR focus

IMAGES

  1. The Significance Of Problem-Solving Skills For Leaders In The Making

    why is problem solving important for leaders

  2. The Significance Of Problem-Solving Skills For Leaders In The Making

    why is problem solving important for leaders

  3. The Importance of Problem-Solving Skills in the Workplace

    why is problem solving important for leaders

  4. 7 steps of problem solving approach

    why is problem solving important for leaders

  5. Why problem solving is important?

    why is problem solving important for leaders

  6. why is it important to have good problem solving skills

    why is problem solving important for leaders

VIDEO

  1. Leadership Skills For Managers Module 2 : Decision Making and Problem Solving

  2. Why problem-solving and decision-making skills are important?

  3. 5 Why Problem Solving

  4. C++ & Problem Solving Course

  5. Engineering 1st semester|Examination Tips and tricks|மிக மிக முக்கியமான தகவல்|Vincent Maths|

  6. Why Problem-Solving Should Be YOUR Second Nature

COMMENTS

  1. Why Problem-Solving Skills Are Essential for Leaders

    Leadership Print Any organization offering a product or service is in the business of solving problems. Whether providing medical care to address health issues or quick convenience to those hungry for dinner, a business's purpose is to satisfy customer needs.

  2. The Power of Leaders Who Focus on Solving Problems

    Having fallen in love with a problem, they step up to leadership — but only reluctantly and only as necessary to get it solved. Leadership becomes an intermittent activity as people with...

  3. Problem-solving in Leadership: How to Master the 5 Key Skills

    What's the Role of Problem-solving in Leadership? Let's picture this: Sarah is a sales manager at a retail store. She has just taken over the role after being promoted for her stellar performance earlier. But she has a problem. The sales are constantly dropping over the last few months. So, what can Sarah do here?

  4. How To Solve A Problem Like A Leader

    Often leaders will think they are driving a problem-solving culture by insistent, or even just encouraging, team members to utilize the tools and templates of problem-solving. However, most ...

  5. The Importance of Problem-Solving Skills in the Workplace

    Why is Problem-Solving so Important for Leaders, Teams, and Organizations? Problem-solving Techniques in the Workplace Better Employee Experience by Using Problem-Solving Tools from Management 3.0 How do Employees Develop Problem-Solving Skills? What Skills Make a Good Problem Solver?

  6. Leadership Problem Solving Skills

    Why is problem solving important in leadership? The importance of leadership problem-solving skills shouldn't be underestimated. When you think about it, businesses are beset by processes and interactions that don't work as well as they could.

  7. What Are Leadership Skills, and Why Are They Important?

    Problem-solving. Effective problem solvers in leadership have the ability to foresee issues in the workplace, define the problem, identify their causes, develop a plan to remedy the problem, and learn from the problem to avoid future issues. Problem-solving requires strong communication skills and respect for all parties involved.

  8. 7 Problem-Solving Skills That Can Help You Be a More ...

    Although problem-solving is a skill in its own right, a subset of seven skills can help make the process of problem-solving easier. These include analysis, communication, emotional intelligence, resilience, creativity, adaptability, and teamwork. 1. Analysis. As a manager, you'll solve each problem by assessing the situation first.

  9. Problem Solving and Leadership

    Dimensions of Leadership Ownership Problem Solving Leadership Essentials: Problem Solving It is often easy to overlook or misunderstand the true nature and cause of problems in the workplace. This can lead to missed learning opportunities, the wrong problem being dealt with, or the symptom being removed but not the cause of the underlying problem.

  10. Why are problem solving skills essential for leadership?

    Why are problem solving skills essential for leadership? By Robert Half on 11 April 2022 What exactly is it about senior executives that sets them apart from everybody else? We're talking about the rare quality or qualities that elevate them above the rest of the workforce.

  11. The 4 Most Effective Ways Leaders Solve Problems

    Whether you are a leader for a large corporation or a small business owner, here are the four most effective ways to solve problems. 1. Transparent Communication. Problem solving requires ...

  12. The 7 steps of Effective Problem Solving and Decision Making

    ‍ The 7 steps of Effective Problem Solving and Decision Making A vital hurdle every leader must overcome is to avoid the impulsive urge to make quick decisions. Often when confronted with a problem, leaders or managers fall back in past behaviours.

  13. Why is Problem Solving Important for Leaders

    Be Open-Minded Problem solving cannot be done well if leaders are change- or risk-averse - or worse, allowing team members to mask inefficiencies. You'll need to be able to assess a problem outside of immediate, obvious details, and be open to taking risks to find a better, more innovative approach.

  14. 6 Problem Solving Skills For Excellent Leaders

    4. Data gathering. Data gathering is another important problem-solving skill to work on. Knowing how to gather both qualitative and quantitative data to solve problems is key, according to Brancu. "This involves taking the time to speak with critical stakeholders, and business data, and garnering other information to ensure that you are not ...

  15. The Development of Problem-Solving Skills for Aspiring Educational Leaders

    Introduction Solving problems is a quintessential aspect of the role of an educational leader. In particular, building leaders, such as principals, assistant principals, and deans of students, are frequently beset by situations that are complex, unique, and open-ended. There are often many possible pathways to resolve the situations, and an astute educational leader needs to…

  16. Importance Of Problem Solving Skills In Leadership

    Leadership Importance Of Problem Solving Skills In Leadership - Make a Difference and Be Successful Last updated Aug 23, 2022 Great leaders in U.S. history showed how you can make a difference and be successful. They are exemplars of the importance of problem solving skills in leadership:

  17. Problem Solving Ability

    Leaders with an aptitude for problem-solving have the ability to analyze, diagnose and deal with problems effectively. Whether the problem is linear and "tame," or nonlinear and "wicked," adept problem solvers have a natural propensity to discover and help lead others to solutions.

  18. Problem Solving 101 for Managers: 5 Essential Skills and Tips

    Communication is one of the five essential skills for effective problem-solving as a manager. Good communication skills are foundational to successful problem-solving, and managers must be able to articulate problems clearly, listen actively to feedback and suggestions, and communicate solutions effectively. Additionally, strong communication ...

  19. The Power of the Five Whys: Drilling Down to Effectively Problem-Solve

    Here are a few reasons why asking "why," or practicing the Five Whys, is important in problem-solving: Identifies underlying issues and root causes: Repeatedly asking "why" helps peel back the layers of a problem to get closer to the heart of what's not working well.The goal is to define the real issue at hand to address its underlying causes.

  20. Educational leaders' problem-solving for educational improvement

    Educational leaders' effectiveness in solving problems is vital to school and system-level efforts to address macrosystem problems of educational inequity and social injustice. Leaders' problem-solving conversation attempts are typically influenced by three types of beliefs—beliefs about the nature of the problem, about what causes it, and about how to solve it. Effective problem solving ...

  21. Problem Solving as a Manager: Definition and Tips

    Problem solving as a manager is important because it helps a company and its employees succeed. Managers who can overcome obstacles efficiently can increase their own productivity, improve job satisfaction of their team and encourage creativity within their department. When a team or department does well, this benefits the company and ensures ...

  22. A Lesson in Leadership: 5 Effective Problem Solving Strategies Used by

    Therefore, problem-solving effectively means creating an environment where everyone is comfortable discussing and tackling the problem in a collaborative manner. 2. Stop Finger Pointing. When a problem arises, it can be all too easy to play the blame game. But, doing this isn't going to get you anywhere.

  23. The Workplace Has A Fundamental Performance Problem—Managers ...

    The truth is being yourself doesn't always mean acceptance and success. It does mean that you will be honest and at your best. The conundrum managers face is that the thing wanted most is top ...

  24. Tiersa Hall on Instagram: "Speaking on the expert panel on the topic

    27 likes, 5 comments - tiersahall on April 20, 2023: "Speaking on the expert panel on the topic: Future HR Leaders and the skills required was a perfec..." Tiersa Hall on Instagram: "Speaking on the expert panel on the topic: Future HR Leaders and the skills required was a perfect fit.