why is problem solving important in leadership

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

The role of problem-solving in enhancing team morale, the right approach to problem-solving in leadership, developing problem-solving skills in leadership, leadership problem-solving examples.

Other Related Blogs

What’s the Role of Problem-solving in Leadership?

• Getting to the root of the issue:  First, Sarah starts by looking at the numbers for the past few months. She identifies the products for which sales are falling. She then attempts to correlate it with the seasonal nature of consumption or if there is any other cause hiding behind the numbers. 
• Identifying the sources of the problem:  In the next step, Sarah attempts to understand why sales are falling. Is it the entry of a new competitor in the next neighborhood, or have consumption preferences changed over time? She asks some of her present and past customers for feedback to get more ideas. 
• Putting facts on the table:  Next up, Sarah talks to her sales team to understand their issues. They could be lacking training or facing heavy workloads, impacting their productivity. Together, they come up with a few ideas to improve sales. 
• Selection and application:  Finally, Sarah and her team pick up a few ideas to work on after analyzing their costs and benefits. They ensure adequate resources, and Sarah provides support by guiding them wherever needed during the planning and execution stage. 
• Identifying the root cause of the problem.
• Brainstorming possible solutions.
• Evaluating those solutions to select the best one.
• Implementing it.

• Analytical thinking:   Analytical thinking skills refer to a leader’s abilities that help them analyze, study, and understand complex problems. It allows them to dive deeper into the issues impacting their teams and ensures that they can identify the causes accurately. 
• Critical Thinking:  Critical thinking skills ensure leaders can think beyond the obvious. They enable leaders to question assumptions, break free from biases, and analyze situations and facts for accuracy. 
• Creativity:  Problems are often not solved straightaway. Leaders need to think out of the box and traverse unconventional routes. Creativity lies at the center of this idea of thinking outside the box and creating pathways where none are apparent. 
• Decision-making:  Cool, you have three ways to go. But where to head? That’s where decision-making comes into play – fine-tuning analysis and making the choices after weighing the pros and cons well. 
• Effective Communication:  Last but not at the end lies effective communication that brings together multiple stakeholders to solve a problem. It is an essential skill to collaborate with all the parties in any issue. Leaders need communication skills to share their ideas and gain support for them.

How do Leaders Solve Problems?

Business turnaround, crisis management, team building.

Process improvement

Ace performance reviews with strong feedback skills..

Master the art of constructive feedback by reviewing your skills with a free assessment now.

Why is problem solving important?

What is problem-solving skills in management, how do you develop problem-solving skills.

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 2024, 5 proven ways managers can build collaboration in a team.

• 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
• Work 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..

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.

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.

• 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

• 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

What Is Creative Problem-Solving & Why Is It Important?

• 01 Feb 2022

One of the biggest hindrances to innovation is complacency—it can be more comfortable to do what you know than venture into the unknown. Business leaders can overcome this barrier by mobilizing creative team members and providing space to innovate.

There are several tools you can use to encourage creativity in the workplace. Creative problem-solving is one of them, which facilitates the development of innovative solutions to difficult problems.

Here’s an overview of creative problem-solving and why it’s important in business.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Creative Problem-Solving?

Research is necessary when solving a problem. But there are situations where a problem’s specific cause is difficult to pinpoint. This can occur when there’s not enough time to narrow down the problem’s source or there are differing opinions about its root cause.

In such cases, you can use creative problem-solving , which allows you to explore potential solutions regardless of whether a problem has been defined.

Creative problem-solving is less structured than other innovation processes and encourages exploring open-ended solutions. It also focuses on developing new perspectives and fostering creativity in the workplace . Its benefits include:

• Finding creative solutions to complex problems : User research can insufficiently illustrate a situation’s complexity. While other innovation processes rely on this information, creative problem-solving can yield solutions without it.
• Adapting to change : Business is constantly changing, and business leaders need to adapt. Creative problem-solving helps overcome unforeseen challenges and find solutions to unconventional problems.
• Fueling innovation and growth : In addition to solutions, creative problem-solving can spark innovative ideas that drive company growth. These ideas can lead to new product lines, services, or a modified operations structure that improves efficiency.

Creative problem-solving is traditionally based on the following key principles :

1. Balance Divergent and Convergent Thinking

Creative problem-solving uses two primary tools to find solutions: divergence and convergence. Divergence generates ideas in response to a problem, while convergence narrows them down to a shortlist. It balances these two practices and turns ideas into concrete solutions.

2. Reframe Problems as Questions

By framing problems as questions, you shift from focusing on obstacles to solutions. This provides the freedom to brainstorm potential ideas.

3. Defer Judgment of Ideas

When brainstorming, it can be natural to reject or accept ideas right away. Yet, immediate judgments interfere with the idea generation process. Even ideas that seem implausible can turn into outstanding innovations upon further exploration and development.

4. Focus on "Yes, And" Instead of "No, But"

Using negative words like "no" discourages creative thinking. Instead, use positive language to build and maintain an environment that fosters the development of creative and innovative ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving and Design Thinking

Whereas creative problem-solving facilitates developing innovative ideas through a less structured workflow, design thinking takes a far more organized approach.

Design thinking is a human-centered, solutions-based process that fosters the ideation and development of solutions. In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar leverages a four-phase framework to explain design thinking.

The four stages are:

• Clarify: The clarification stage allows you to empathize with the user and identify problems. Observations and insights are informed by thorough research. Findings are then reframed as problem statements or questions.
• Ideate: Ideation is the process of coming up with innovative ideas. The divergence of ideas involved with creative problem-solving is a major focus.
• Develop: In the development stage, ideas evolve into experiments and tests. Ideas converge and are explored through prototyping and open critique.
• Implement: Implementation involves continuing to test and experiment to refine the solution and encourage its adoption.

Creative problem-solving primarily operates in the ideate phase of design thinking but can be applied to others. This is because design thinking is an iterative process that moves between the stages as ideas are generated and pursued. This is normal and encouraged, as innovation requires exploring multiple ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving Tools

While there are many useful tools in the creative problem-solving process, here are three you should know:

Creating a Problem Story

One way to innovate is by creating a story about a problem to understand how it affects users and what solutions best fit their needs. Here are the steps you need to take to use this tool properly.

1. Identify a UDP

Create a problem story to identify the undesired phenomena (UDP). For example, consider a company that produces printers that overheat. In this case, the UDP is "our printers overheat."

2. Move Forward in Time

To move forward in time, ask: “Why is this a problem?” For example, minor damage could be one result of the machines overheating. In more extreme cases, printers may catch fire. Don't be afraid to create multiple problem stories if you think of more than one UDP.

3. Move Backward in Time

To move backward in time, ask: “What caused this UDP?” If you can't identify the root problem, think about what typically causes the UDP to occur. For the overheating printers, overuse could be a cause.

Following the three-step framework above helps illustrate a clear problem story:

• The printer is overused.
• The printer overheats.
• The printer breaks down.

You can extend the problem story in either direction if you think of additional cause-and-effect relationships.

4. Break the Chains

By this point, you’ll have multiple UDP storylines. Take two that are similar and focus on breaking the chains connecting them. This can be accomplished through inversion or neutralization.

• Inversion: Inversion changes the relationship between two UDPs so the cause is the same but the effect is the opposite. For example, if the UDP is "the more X happens, the more likely Y is to happen," inversion changes the equation to "the more X happens, the less likely Y is to happen." Using the printer example, inversion would consider: "What if the more a printer is used, the less likely it’s going to overheat?" Innovation requires an open mind. Just because a solution initially seems unlikely doesn't mean it can't be pursued further or spark additional ideas.
• Neutralization: Neutralization completely eliminates the cause-and-effect relationship between X and Y. This changes the above equation to "the more or less X happens has no effect on Y." In the case of the printers, neutralization would rephrase the relationship to "the more or less a printer is used has no effect on whether it overheats."

Even if creating a problem story doesn't provide a solution, it can offer useful context to users’ problems and additional ideas to be explored. Given that divergence is one of the fundamental practices of creative problem-solving, it’s a good idea to incorporate it into each tool you use.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a tool that can be highly effective when guided by the iterative qualities of the design thinking process. It involves openly discussing and debating ideas and topics in a group setting. This facilitates idea generation and exploration as different team members consider the same concept from multiple perspectives.

Hosting brainstorming sessions can result in problems, such as groupthink or social loafing. To combat this, leverage a three-step brainstorming method involving divergence and convergence :

• Have each group member come up with as many ideas as possible and write them down to ensure the brainstorming session is productive.
• Continue the divergence of ideas by collectively sharing and exploring each idea as a group. The goal is to create a setting where new ideas are inspired by open discussion.
• Begin the convergence of ideas by narrowing them down to a few explorable options. There’s no "right number of ideas." Don't be afraid to consider exploring all of them, as long as you have the resources to do so.

Alternate Worlds

The alternate worlds tool is an empathetic approach to creative problem-solving. It encourages you to consider how someone in another world would approach your situation.

For example, if you’re concerned that the printers you produce overheat and catch fire, consider how a different industry would approach the problem. How would an automotive expert solve it? How would a firefighter?

Be creative as you consider and research alternate worlds. The purpose is not to nail down a solution right away but to continue the ideation process through diverging and exploring ideas.

Continue Developing Your Skills

Whether you’re an entrepreneur, marketer, or business leader, learning the ropes of design thinking can be an effective way to build your skills and foster creativity and innovation in any setting.

If you're ready to develop your design thinking and creative problem-solving skills, explore Design Thinking and Innovation , one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses. If you aren't sure which course is the right fit, download our free course flowchart to determine which best aligns with your goals.

About the Author

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

• 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

09 February 2018

Spotlight on Gap Analysis

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)

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

• 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

Share Podcast

Do You Understand the Problem You’re Trying to Solve?

To solve tough problems at work, first ask these questions.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

Problem solving skills are invaluable in any job. But all too often, we jump to find solutions to a problem without taking time to really understand the dilemma we face, according to Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg , an expert in innovation and the author of the book, What’s Your Problem?: To Solve Your Toughest Problems, Change the Problems You Solve .

In this episode, you’ll learn how to reframe tough problems by asking questions that reveal all the factors and assumptions that contribute to the situation. You’ll also learn why searching for just one root cause can be misleading.

Key episode topics include: leadership, decision making and problem solving, power and influence, business management.

HBR On Leadership curates the best case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, to help you unlock the best in those around you. New episodes every week.

• Listen to the original HBR IdeaCast episode: The Secret to Better Problem Solving (2016)
• Find more episodes of HBR IdeaCast
• Discover 100 years of Harvard Business Review articles, case studies, podcasts, and more at HBR.org .

HANNAH BATES: Welcome to HBR on Leadership , case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, hand-selected to help you unlock the best in those around you.

Problem solving skills are invaluable in any job. But even the most experienced among us can fall into the trap of solving the wrong problem.

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg says that all too often, we jump to find solutions to a problem – without taking time to really understand what we’re facing.

He’s an expert in innovation, and he’s the author of the book, What’s Your Problem?: To Solve Your Toughest Problems, Change the Problems You Solve .

  In this episode, you’ll learn how to reframe tough problems, by asking questions that reveal all the factors and assumptions that contribute to the situation. You’ll also learn why searching for one root cause can be misleading. And you’ll learn how to use experimentation and rapid prototyping as problem-solving tools.

This episode originally aired on HBR IdeaCast in December 2016. Here it is.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I’m Sarah Green Carmichael.

Problem solving is popular. People put it on their resumes. Managers believe they excel at it. Companies count it as a key proficiency. We solve customers’ problems.

The problem is we often solve the wrong problems. Albert Einstein and Peter Drucker alike have discussed the difficulty of effective diagnosis. There are great frameworks for getting teams to attack true problems, but they’re often hard to do daily and on the fly. That’s where our guest comes in.

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg is a consultant who helps companies and managers reframe their problems so they can come up with an effective solution faster. He asks the question “Are You Solving The Right Problems?” in the January-February 2017 issue of Harvard Business Review. Thomas, thank you so much for coming on the HBR IdeaCast .

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Thanks for inviting me.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, I thought maybe we could start by talking about the problem of talking about problem reframing. What is that exactly?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Basically, when people face a problem, they tend to jump into solution mode to rapidly, and very often that means that they don’t really understand, necessarily, the problem they’re trying to solve. And so, reframing is really a– at heart, it’s a method that helps you avoid that by taking a second to go in and ask two questions, basically saying, first of all, wait. What is the problem we’re trying to solve? And then crucially asking, is there a different way to think about what the problem actually is?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, I feel like so often when this comes up in meetings, you know, someone says that, and maybe they throw out the Einstein quote about you spend an hour of problem solving, you spend 55 minutes to find the problem. And then everyone else in the room kind of gets irritated. So, maybe just give us an example of maybe how this would work in practice in a way that would not, sort of, set people’s teeth on edge, like oh, here Sarah goes again, reframing the whole problem instead of just solving it.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: I mean, you’re bringing up something that’s, I think is crucial, which is to create legitimacy for the method. So, one of the reasons why I put out the article is to give people a tool to say actually, this thing is still important, and we need to do it. But I think the really critical thing in order to make this work in a meeting is actually to learn how to do it fast, because if you have the idea that you need to spend 30 minutes in a meeting delving deeply into the problem, I mean, that’s going to be uphill for most problems. So, the critical thing here is really to try to make it a practice you can implement very, very rapidly.

There’s an example that I would suggest memorizing. This is the example that I use to explain very rapidly what it is. And it’s basically, I call it the slow elevator problem. You imagine that you are the owner of an office building, and that your tenants are complaining that the elevator’s slow.

Now, if you take that problem framing for granted, you’re going to start thinking creatively around how do we make the elevator faster. Do we install a new motor? Do we have to buy a new lift somewhere?

The thing is, though, if you ask people who actually work with facilities management, well, they’re going to have a different solution for you, which is put up a mirror next to the elevator. That’s what happens is, of course, that people go oh, I’m busy. I’m busy. I’m– oh, a mirror. Oh, that’s beautiful.

And then they forget time. What’s interesting about that example is that the idea with a mirror is actually a solution to a different problem than the one you first proposed. And so, the whole idea here is once you get good at using reframing, you can quickly identify other aspects of the problem that might be much better to try to solve than the original one you found. It’s not necessarily that the first one is wrong. It’s just that there might be better problems out there to attack that we can, means we can do things much faster, cheaper, or better.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, in that example, I can understand how A, it’s probably expensive to make the elevator faster, so it’s much cheaper just to put up a mirror. And B, maybe the real problem people are actually feeling, even though they’re not articulating it right, is like, I hate waiting for the elevator. But if you let them sort of fix their hair or check their teeth, they’re suddenly distracted and don’t notice.

But if you have, this is sort of a pedestrian example, but say you have a roommate or a spouse who doesn’t clean up the kitchen. Facing that problem and not having your elegant solution already there to highlight the contrast between the perceived problem and the real problem, how would you take a problem like that and attack it using this method so that you can see what some of the other options might be?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Right. So, I mean, let’s say it’s you who have that problem. I would go in and say, first of all, what would you say the problem is? Like, if you were to describe your view of the problem, what would that be?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: I hate cleaning the kitchen, and I want someone else to clean it up.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: OK. So, my first observation, you know, that somebody else might not necessarily be your spouse. So, already there, there’s an inbuilt assumption in your question around oh, it has to be my husband who does the cleaning. So, it might actually be worth, already there to say, is that really the only problem you have? That you hate cleaning the kitchen, and you want to avoid it? Or might there be something around, as well, getting a better relationship in terms of how you solve problems in general or establishing a better way to handle small problems when dealing with your spouse?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Or maybe, now that I’m thinking that, maybe the problem is that you just can’t find the stuff in the kitchen when you need to find it.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Right, and so that’s an example of a reframing, that actually why is it a problem that the kitchen is not clean? Is it only because you hate the act of cleaning, or does it actually mean that it just takes you a lot longer and gets a lot messier to actually use the kitchen, which is a different problem. The way you describe this problem now, is there anything that’s missing from that description?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That is a really good question.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Other, basically asking other factors that we are not talking about right now, and I say those because people tend to, when given a problem, they tend to delve deeper into the detail. What often is missing is actually an element outside of the initial description of the problem that might be really relevant to what’s going on. Like, why does the kitchen get messy in the first place? Is it something about the way you use it or your cooking habits? Is it because the neighbor’s kids, kind of, use it all the time?

There might, very often, there might be issues that you’re not really thinking about when you first describe the problem that actually has a big effect on it.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: I think at this point it would be helpful to maybe get another business example, and I’m wondering if you could tell us the story of the dog adoption problem.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Yeah. This is a big problem in the US. If you work in the shelter industry, basically because dogs are so popular, more than 3 million dogs every year enter a shelter, and currently only about half of those actually find a new home and get adopted. And so, this is a problem that has persisted. It’s been, like, a structural problem for decades in this space. In the last three years, where people found new ways to address it.

So a woman called Lori Weise who runs a rescue organization in South LA, and she actually went in and challenged the very idea of what we were trying to do. She said, no, no. The problem we’re trying to solve is not about how to get more people to adopt dogs. It is about keeping the dogs with their first family so they never enter the shelter system in the first place.

In 2013, she started what’s called a Shelter Intervention Program that basically works like this. If a family comes and wants to hand over their dog, these are called owner surrenders. It’s about 30% of all dogs that come into a shelter. All they would do is go up and ask, if you could, would you like to keep your animal? And if they said yes, they would try to fix whatever helped them fix the problem, but that made them turn over this.

And sometimes that might be that they moved into a new building. The landlord required a deposit, and they simply didn’t have the money to put down a deposit. Or the dog might need a $10 rabies shot, but they didn’t know how to get access to a vet.

And so, by instigating that program, just in the first year, she took her, basically the amount of dollars they spent per animal they helped went from something like $85 down to around $60. Just an immediate impact, and her program now is being rolled out, is being supported by the ASPCA, which is one of the big animal welfare stations, and it’s being rolled out to various other places.

And I think what really struck me with that example was this was not dependent on having the internet. This was not, oh, we needed to have everybody mobile before we could come up with this. This, conceivably, we could have done 20 years ago. Only, it only happened when somebody, like in this case Lori, went in and actually rethought what the problem they were trying to solve was in the first place.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, what I also think is so interesting about that example is that when you talk about it, it doesn’t sound like the kind of thing that would have been thought of through other kinds of problem solving methods. There wasn’t necessarily an After Action Review or a 5 Whys exercise or a Six Sigma type intervention. I don’t want to throw those other methods under the bus, but how can you get such powerful results with such a very simple way of thinking about something?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: That was something that struck me as well. This, in a way, reframing and the idea of the problem diagnosis is important is something we’ve known for a long, long time. And we’ve actually have built some tools to help out. If you worked with us professionally, you are familiar with, like, Six Sigma, TRIZ, and so on. You mentioned 5 Whys. A root cause analysis is another one that a lot of people are familiar with.

Those are our good tools, and they’re definitely better than nothing. But what I notice when I work with the companies applying those was those tools tend to make you dig deeper into the first understanding of the problem we have. If it’s the elevator example, people start asking, well, is that the cable strength, or is the capacity of the elevator? That they kind of get caught by the details.

That, in a way, is a bad way to work on problems because it really assumes that there’s like a, you can almost hear it, a root cause. That you have to dig down and find the one true problem, and everything else was just symptoms. That’s a bad way to think about problems because problems tend to be multicausal.

There tend to be lots of causes or levers you can potentially press to address a problem. And if you think there’s only one, if that’s the right problem, that’s actually a dangerous way. And so I think that’s why, that this is a method I’ve worked with over the last five years, trying to basically refine how to make people better at this, and the key tends to be this thing about shifting out and saying, is there a totally different way of thinking about the problem versus getting too caught up in the mechanistic details of what happens.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: What about experimentation? Because that’s another method that’s become really popular with the rise of Lean Startup and lots of other innovation methodologies. Why wouldn’t it have worked to, say, experiment with many different types of fixing the dog adoption problem, and then just pick the one that works the best?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: You could say in the dog space, that’s what’s been going on. I mean, there is, in this industry and a lot of, it’s largely volunteer driven. People have experimented, and they found different ways of trying to cope. And that has definitely made the problem better. So, I wouldn’t say that experimentation is bad, quite the contrary. Rapid prototyping, quickly putting something out into the world and learning from it, that’s a fantastic way to learn more and to move forward.

My point is, though, that I feel we’ve come to rely too much on that. There’s like, if you look at the start up space, the wisdom is now just to put something quickly into the market, and then if it doesn’t work, pivot and just do more stuff. What reframing really is, I think of it as the cognitive counterpoint to prototyping. So, this is really a way of seeing very quickly, like not just working on the solution, but also working on our understanding of the problem and trying to see is there a different way to think about that.

If you only stick with experimentation, again, you tend to sometimes stay too much in the same space trying minute variations of something instead of taking a step back and saying, wait a minute. What is this telling us about what the real issue is?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, to go back to something that we touched on earlier, when we were talking about the completely hypothetical example of a spouse who does not clean the kitchen–

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Completely, completely hypothetical.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Yes. For the record, my husband is a great kitchen cleaner.

You started asking me some questions that I could see immediately were helping me rethink that problem. Is that kind of the key, just having a checklist of questions to ask yourself? How do you really start to put this into practice?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: I think there are two steps in that. The first one is just to make yourself better at the method. Yes, you should kind of work with a checklist. In the article, I kind of outlined seven practices that you can use to do this.

But importantly, I would say you have to consider that as, basically, a set of training wheels. I think there’s a big, big danger in getting caught in a checklist. This is something I work with.

My co-author Paddy Miller, it’s one of his insights. That if you start giving people a checklist for things like this, they start following it. And that’s actually a problem, because what you really want them to do is start challenging their thinking.

So the way to handle this is to get some practice using it. Do use the checklist initially, but then try to step away from it and try to see if you can organically make– it’s almost a habit of mind. When you run into a colleague in the hallway and she has a problem and you have five minutes, like, delving in and just starting asking some of those questions and using your intuition to say, wait, how is she talking about this problem? And is there a question or two I can ask her about the problem that can help her rethink it?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, that is also just a very different approach, because I think in that situation, most of us can’t go 30 seconds without jumping in and offering solutions.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Very true. The drive toward solutions is very strong. And to be clear, I mean, there’s nothing wrong with that if the solutions work. So, many problems are just solved by oh, you know, oh, here’s the way to do that. Great.

But this is really a powerful method for those problems where either it’s something we’ve been banging our heads against tons of times without making progress, or when you need to come up with a really creative solution. When you’re facing a competitor with a much bigger budget, and you know, if you solve the same problem later, you’re not going to win. So, that basic idea of taking that approach to problems can often help you move forward in a different way than just like, oh, I have a solution.

I would say there’s also, there’s some interesting psychological stuff going on, right? Where you may have tried this, but if somebody tries to serve up a solution to a problem I have, I’m often resistant towards them. Kind if like, no, no, no, no, no, no. That solution is not going to work in my world. Whereas if you get them to discuss and analyze what the problem really is, you might actually dig something up.

Let’s go back to the kitchen example. One powerful question is just to say, what’s your own part in creating this problem? It’s very often, like, people, they describe problems as if it’s something that’s inflicted upon them from the external world, and they are innocent bystanders in that.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Right, or crazy customers with unreasonable demands.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Exactly, right. I don’t think I’ve ever met an agency or consultancy that didn’t, like, gossip about their customers. Oh, my god, they’re horrible. That, you know, classic thing, why don’t they want to take more risk? Well, risk is bad.

It’s their business that’s on the line, not the consultancy’s, right? So, absolutely, that’s one of the things when you step into a different mindset and kind of, wait. Oh yeah, maybe I actually am part of creating this problem in a sense, as well. That tends to open some new doors for you to move forward, in a way, with stuff that you may have been struggling with for years.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, we’ve surfaced a couple of questions that are useful. I’m curious to know, what are some of the other questions that you find yourself asking in these situations, given that you have made this sort of mental habit that you do? What are the questions that people seem to find really useful?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: One easy one is just to ask if there are any positive exceptions to the problem. So, was there day where your kitchen was actually spotlessly clean? And then asking, what was different about that day? Like, what happened there that didn’t happen the other days? That can very often point people towards a factor that they hadn’t considered previously.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: We got take-out.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: S,o that is your solution. Take-out from [INAUDIBLE]. That might have other problems.

Another good question, and this is a little bit more high level. It’s actually more making an observation about labeling how that person thinks about the problem. And what I mean with that is, we have problem categories in our head. So, if I say, let’s say that you describe a problem to me and say, well, we have a really great product and are, it’s much better than our previous product, but people aren’t buying it. I think we need to put more marketing dollars into this.

Now you can go in and say, that’s interesting. This sounds like you’re thinking of this as a communications problem. Is there a different way of thinking about that? Because you can almost tell how, when the second you say communications, there are some ideas about how do you solve a communications problem. Typically with more communication.

And what you might do is go in and suggest, well, have you considered that it might be, say, an incentive problem? Are there incentives on behalf of the purchasing manager at your clients that are obstructing you? Might there be incentive issues with your own sales force that makes them want to sell the old product instead of the new one?

So literally, just identifying what type of problem does this person think about, and is there different potential way of thinking about it? Might it be an emotional problem, a timing problem, an expectations management problem? Thinking about what label of what type of problem that person is kind of thinking as it of.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That’s really interesting, too, because I think so many of us get requests for advice that we’re really not qualified to give. So, maybe the next time that happens, instead of muddying my way through, I will just ask some of those questions that we talked about instead.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: That sounds like a good idea.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, Thomas, this has really helped me reframe the way I think about a couple of problems in my own life, and I’m just wondering. I know you do this professionally, but is there a problem in your life that thinking this way has helped you solve?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: I’ve, of course, I’ve been swallowing my own medicine on this, too, and I think I have, well, maybe two different examples, and in one case somebody else did the reframing for me. But in one case, when I was younger, I often kind of struggled a little bit. I mean, this is my teenage years, kind of hanging out with my parents. I thought they were pretty annoying people. That’s not really fair, because they’re quite wonderful, but that’s what life is when you’re a teenager.

And one of the things that struck me, suddenly, and this was kind of the positive exception was, there was actually an evening where we really had a good time, and there wasn’t a conflict. And the core thing was, I wasn’t just seeing them in their old house where I grew up. It was, actually, we were at a restaurant. And it suddenly struck me that so much of the sometimes, kind of, a little bit, you love them but they’re annoying kind of dynamic, is tied to the place, is tied to the setting you are in.

And of course, if– you know, I live abroad now, if I visit my parents and I stay in my old bedroom, you know, my mother comes in and wants to wake me up in the morning. Stuff like that, right? And it just struck me so, so clearly that it’s– when I change this setting, if I go out and have dinner with them at a different place, that the dynamic, just that dynamic disappears.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, Thomas, this has been really, really helpful. Thank you for talking with me today.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Thank you, Sarah.  

HANNAH BATES: That was Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg in conversation with Sarah Green Carmichael on the HBR IdeaCast. He’s an expert in problem solving and innovation, and he’s the author of the book, What’s Your Problem?: To Solve Your Toughest Problems, Change the Problems You Solve .

We’ll be back next Wednesday with another hand-picked conversation about leadership from the Harvard Business Review. If you found this episode helpful, share it with your friends and colleagues, and follow our show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. While you’re there, be sure to leave us a review.

We’re a production of Harvard Business Review. If you want more podcasts, articles, case studies, books, and videos like this, find it all at HBR dot org.

This episode was produced by Anne Saini, and me, Hannah Bates. Ian Fox is our editor. Music by Coma Media. Special thanks to Maureen Hoch, Adi Ignatius, Karen Player, Ramsey Khabbaz, Nicole Smith, Anne Bartholomew, and you – our listener.

See you next week.

• Subscribe On:

Latest in this series

This article is about leadership.

• Decision making and problem solving
• Power and influence
• Business management

Partner Center

Worawut/Adobe Stock

By Jill Babcock Leaders Staff

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

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

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

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...

6 Unique Annual Staff Party Ideas That Will Leave a Lasting Impression  

Why Is Respect Important In Leadership?

How To Tell Someone They Are Not A Team Player (Without Offending Them)

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.

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  

13k Accesses

8 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

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

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

Jacqueline Margaret Patuawa, Claire Sinnema, … Tong Zhu

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.

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.

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).

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

• Business Women
• African Media Agency
• Advertisements

Effective problem solving is one of the key attributes that separate great leaders from average ones

Top 10 Most Influential People in Leadership Consulting, 2022

Leadership consulting makes use of several strategies to accomplish the desired goal. A mentoring program may be implemented to allow department heads and supervisors to learn more about the management techniques used by upper-level managers. Today’s leadership responsibilities and roles aren’t limited to delegating and management. Instead, when it comes to effective leadership, problem-solving is not only an important skill but a crucial role for leaders to take on.

Problems are inevitable in the workplace, so developing problem-solving skills is helpful for management to learn how to identify problems as they arise and determine effective solutions. Studying different methods for problem-solving can help leaders prevent and approach difficult situations in a positive, relevant, and successful manner.

Understanding Problem-Solving: A problem well stated is a problem half solved

As a leader, you need to approach problem-solving as an opportunity, with a broad perspective and a calm demeanor. And, you’ll want to arm yourself with a few critical approaches to hone your problem-solving skills. Understanding your problem is half the solution.

Learning how to break down and solve complex problems is a core skill you need in today’s business world. A leader must never view a problem as a distraction, but rather as a strategic enabler for continuous improvement and opportunities previously unseen. Management demands action, not talk and collaborative analysis. Especially the kind of meetings that involves debate and discussion are seen as “just talk”. This is understandable considering the number of meaningless meetings most people experience, but debates and discussions are necessary to create a shared understanding of a problem.

Basic steps in problem-solving

• Build trust with your team so they feel comfortable talking to you if they’re struggling with a problem. If they’re concerned about repercussions from you, they may avoid sharing it with you.
•  Because you’re already good at solving problems, you also may be tempted to solve them for your team. Instead, avoid the impulse to do it for them and work with them to address problems, along the way building their capability to do it themselves. Problems get solved better and faster at the lowest level possible, so work with people to develop problem-solving skills.
•  As you grow as a leader, the size of your problems will grow too. It’s critical to continue to develop your process, ask the right questions, and get all the facts to find the best solutions.

Tips for Effective Problem-Solving

You’ll be able to solve problems in your role better as you grow in your industry-specific knowledge. Whether you are a leader for a large corporation or a small business owner, here are some effective ways to solve problems.

• Transparent Communication
• Be Open-minded To People
• Build A Solid Foundational Strategy
• Defining the Problem:  In almost every problem-solving methodology the first step is defining or identifying the problem. It is the most difficult and the most important of all the steps. It involves diagnosing the situation so that the focus is on the real problem and not on its symptoms. Deeply understanding a problem through research, leads to better solutions. Research can include interviewing, reading books and emails, analyzing financial data, searching your organization’s intranet, and organizing your findings.
• Brainstorming:  Creating a myriad of new solutions quickly. In group brainstorms, allow everyone to state ideas. Brainstorming combines a relaxed, informal approach to problem-solving with lateral thinking. It encourages people to come up with thoughts and ideas that can, at first, seem a bit crazy. Some of these ideas can be crafted into original, creative solutions to a problem, while others can spark even more ideas. Appreciate all input, and avoid criticism. Then, organize solutions into groups around common themes.
• Analyzing:  Using disciplined thought processes to evaluate each possible solution. The ability to examine information or a situation in detail to identify key or important elements, their strengths, and weaknesses and use these to compile a persuasive argument, make recommendations or solve a problem.
• Managing Risk:  Risk management in problem-solving is a critical skill required for construction and effective leadership at all levels. Anticipating and trying to avoid the downsides of key solutions. Your team can list potential risks, rate how likely each is, predict a date by which each might either happen or no longer be an issue, and think of ways to reduce those risks. Once risks have been identified, along with their likelihood and their impact on a situation or the organization, it must then be decided as to what the best way to manage each is.
• Deciding:  Decision-making skills are important because they can help you to navigate a variety of situations that might come up at work. The ability to decide on a solution and move forward with it. After an appropriate amount of time, an analysis of possible solutions, and feedback from team members, a designated decider must choose and implement a solution.
• Managing Emotions:  Emotional intelligence is all about how well you understand your own emotions and the emotions of others, and the ability to identify and manage them. Applying emotional intelligence to improve your and your team members’ ability to think clearly. This requires you to recognize emotions in yourself and others, manage feelings, and channel emotions into useful work.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Stephen ingalls: helping leaders discover the right way to lead, robert abbanat – an edtech entrepreneur leading the way in leadership coaching and development, dr. angelique adams: a leadership development strategist and advisor focusing on innovators., most popular, pamela saechow: bridging the gap between healthcare & it solutions, megaplanit: a trusted cybersecurity partner for your business, plinio vitorelli: creating better it and telecommunication services with hit communications, unleashing potential: louise brown’s blueprint for hr success in the age..., advocacy trends in africa that are shaping the future, strategy v/s planning in leadership development: a strategy without a plan..., azure: the software that ensured microsoft’s entry into the trillion dollar..., valerie brown-dufour: leader, woman, trailblazer, janet schijns: setting high goals for women in the tech industry, editor picks, chris oshiafi: the visionary striving to reshape africa’s narrative, esther ngari: the visionary leader shaping the future of kenya, dr. blessing mudavanhu: a gifted mathematician bringing change through prolific leadership, popular posts, jade clinics: making electrolysis a simple way of life, julia carlson: on a unique path of freedom, sabrina khan: battling against orphan diseases with full determination, latest issue.

Bettina Schaller: Revolutionizing the Labour Market by focusing on Social Impact

Erika ehrnrooth: setting a high bar for women community as a....

• Author Rights
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

• 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] .

What is problem solving and why is it important

By Wayne Stottler , Kepner-Tregoe

• Problem Solving & Decision Making Over time, developing and refining problem solving skills provides the ability to solve increasingly complex problems Learn More

For over 60 years, Kepner-Tregoe has been helping companies across industries and geographies to develop and mature their problem-solving capabilities through KT’s industry leading approach to training and the implementation of best practice processes. Considering that problem solving is a part of almost every person’s daily life (both at home and in the workplace), it is surprising how often we are asked to explain what problem solving is and why it is important.

Problem solving is at the core of human evolution. It is the methods we use to understand what is happening in our environment, identify things we want to change and then figure out the things that need to be done to create the desired outcome. Problem solving is the source of all new inventions, social and cultural evolution, and the basis for market based economies. It is the basis for continuous improvement, communication and learning.

If this problem-solving thing is so important to daily life, what is it?

Problem-solving is the process of observing what is going on in your environment; identifying things that could be changed or improved; diagnosing why the current state is the way it is and the factors and forces that influence it; developing approaches and alternatives to influence change; making decisions about which alternative to select; taking action to implement the changes; and observing impact of those actions in the environment.

Each step in the problem-solving process employs skills and methods that contribute to the overall effectiveness of influencing change and determine the level of problem complexity that can be addressed. Humans learn how to solve simple problems from a very early age (learning to eat, make coordinated movements and communicate) – and as a person goes through life problem-solving skills are refined, matured and become more sophisticated (enabling them to solve more difficult problems).

Problem-solving is important both to individuals and organizations because it enables us to exert control over our environment.

Fixing things that are broken

Some things wear out and break over time, others are flawed from day-1. Personal and business environments are full of things, activities, interactions and processes that are broken or not operating in the way they are desired to work. Problem-solving gives us a mechanism for identifying these things, figuring out why they are broken and determining a course of action to fix them.

Addressing risk

Humans have learned to identify trends and developed an awareness of cause-and-effect relationships in their environment. These skills not only enable us to fix things when they break but also anticipate what may happen in the future (based on past-experience and current events). Problem-solving can be applied to the anticipated future events and used to enable action in the present to influence the likelihood of the event occurring and/or alter the impact if the event does occur.

Improving performance

Individuals and organizations do not exist in isolation in the environment. There is a complex and ever-changing web of relationships that exist and as a result, the actions of one person will often have either a direct impact on others or an indirect impact by changing the environment dynamics. These interdependencies enable humans to work together to solve more complex problems but they also create a force that requires everyone to continuously improve performance to adapt to improvements by others. Problem-solving helps us understand relationships and implement the changes and improvements needed to compete and survive in a continually changing environment.

Seizing opportunity

Problem solving isn’t just about responding to (and fixing) the environment that exists today. It is also about innovating, creating new things and changing the environment to be more desirable. Problem-solving enables us to identify and exploit opportunities in the environment and exert (some level of) control over the future.

Problem solving skills and the problem-solving process are a critical part of daily life both as individuals and organizations. Developing and refining these skills through training, practice and learning can provide the ability to solve problems more effectively and over time address problems with a greater degree of complexity and difficulty. View KT’s Problem Solving workshop known to be the gold standard for over 60 years.

We are experts in:

For inquiries, details, or a proposal!

Subscribe to the KT Newsletter

7 Reasons Why is Teamwork Is SO Important (Studies Explain)

Home > blog > 7 Reasons Why is Teamwork Is SO Important (Studies Explain)

On the surface, it seems you’re most productive when you’re alone, free from team distractions and the potential inefficiencies of group work. 

This perspective paints teamwork as a possible hindrance to personal output, suggesting that navigating different personalities, opinions, and work styles might slow down progress. 

However, this viewpoint doesn’t capture the whole picture.

In reality, the benefits of teamwork far outweigh these perceived drawbacks. When effectively harnessed, teamwork can unlock levels of creativity, innovation, and problem-solving capabilities far beyond what individuals can achieve on their own.

In this article, we delve into the critical role of teamwork in driving organizational success from a scientific perspective, ensuring every key benefit of teamwork is grounded in scientific research. 

1. Enhanced Problem Solving

If you take a look at the NASA Internship program, you’ll quickly see that NASA is very keen on hiring people from all backgrounds. 

And there’s a reason for that. Diverse teams, such as those NASA assembles, bring together varied perspectives, experiences, and skill sets, which are crucial when addressing complex challenges. This diversity fosters innovation and creative problem-solving, enabling teams to view problems from multiple angles and devise comprehensive solutions that might elude more homogenous groups. In essence, the diversity found in these teams enhances their ability to tackle intricate issues effectively and efficiently.

This principle is not just theoretical but is backed by scientific research. Studies in organizational behavior and psychology have consistently shown that diverse teams perform better at complex problem-solving tasks than their less diverse counterparts.

Same logic applies behind forming Scrum teams that always should be cross-functional, meaning that they involve people from different professional backgrounds. Although the main idea behind such guidelines is to make Scrum teams self-sufficient, having team members from different backgrounds helps manage complex problems and do that in a timely manner.

Research : A McKinsey study in 2015 examining 366 publicly traded companies demonstrated a significant correlation between diversity and financial performance. Companies in the highest quartile for racial and ethnic diversity in their management teams were 35% more likely to surpass the average financial returns in their respective industries. Similarly, companies with the greatest gender diversity at the management level were 15% more likely to exceed industry mean financial returns. [ Source ]

2. Psychological Safety

The significance of teamwork, as highlighted by Google’s Project Aristotle , lies in the concept of psychological safety. This concept underscores that the success of a team is less about the sum of its individual talents and more about creating an environment where members feel safe to share ideas and take risks without fear of humiliation. 

Such an atmosphere encourages open dialogue, fosters innovation, and enhances problem-solving capabilities, proving that the collective efficacy of a team is pivotal for achieving exceptional outcomes in any endeavor.

Research : by creating a space where everyone dares to be vulnerable, you will make people feel safer to share those half-baked ideas without the fear of ridicule. In such an environment, innovation happens naturally. Teams thrive, problems get solved in unexpectedly creative ways, and, above all, people feel genuinely connected to their work and each other. [ Source ]

3. Greater Sense of Accountability 

Teamwork fosters a greater sense of accountability among its members. When working in a team, individuals are not only responsible for their own tasks but also contribute to the group’s collective goals. This shared responsibility encourages members to be more engaged and diligent in their contributions.

Research : studies have shown that teams with a strong sense of accountability exhibit higher performance levels, as members are more likely to hold themselves and each other to higher standards, leading to improved outcomes and success. [ Source ]

4. Better Learning Opportunities

Teamwork opens the door to better learning opportunities for all members involved. In a collaborative environment, individuals are exposed to diverse skills, experiences, and perspectives, facilitating a rich learning atmosphere. This cross-pollination of knowledge not only enhances individual expertise but also fosters a culture of continuous improvement and innovation.

Research: published in the Academy of Management Learning & Education journal supports this, indicating that teams engaged in reflective learning processes are more adept at adapting and applying new knowledge to achieve their objectives. Through teamwork, members not only achieve their collective goals but also embark on a journey of personal and professional growth, making learning an integral part of the team’s success. [ Source ]

5. Increased Productivity

Teamwork significantly enhances productivity by pooling diverse skills and perspectives, leading to more efficient problem-solving and task completion. When individuals collaborate, they can divide tasks based on expertise, allowing for a more focused and effective approach to project execution. This division of labor not only speeds up processes but also ensures higher quality outcomes. 

Research : A business study highlights that teams with a strong sense of unity and purpose tend to outperform individuals working in silos, as collaboration fosters a more dynamic and flexible approach to work. Through shared goals and mutual support, teamwork catalyzes a productivity boost, making it a key driver of success in any organizational context. [ Source ]

6. Enhanced Resilience

Work burnout is one of the leading causes of severe productivity loss. But working in a well balanced team can help you better manage burnouts or even prevent them entirely. 

The essence of a well-balanced team lies in its ability to distribute workload effectively, ensuring that no single member is overwhelmed. This distribution leverages diverse skill sets and perspectives, fostering an environment where challenges are approached collectively, reducing stress and enhancing problem-solving capabilities.

Moreover, being part of a cohesive team instills a sense of belonging and support among its members. This psychological safety encourages open communication regarding workloads and stress levels, allowing for preemptive action to be taken to adjust workloads and provide support where necessary. The proactive management of these factors is crucial in preventing burnout, thereby sustaining performance and morale.

7. Leadership Development

The importance of growing leaders within a team cannot be overstated. Companies are fundamentally built by people, and the cultivation of confident, experienced leaders within teams is not just beneficial but essential. 

When team members are given leadership roles, even on a small scale, they encounter real-world challenges and opportunities to develop critical skills such as decision-making, delegation, and communication.

Moreover, developing leaders from within has profound implications for organizational continuity and culture. Internal leaders carry with them a deep understanding of the company’s values, operations, and goals, ensuring that leadership transitions are smooth and that the company’s ethos is preserved.

Research : promoting leaders from within has been shown to lead to greater productivity, increased employee buy-in, and better retention rates. [ Source ]

The Compelling Case for Teamwork

Working alone might seem easier at first—straightforward and under your control. Yet, what we gain through teamwork surpasses going it alone. 

Teamwork isn’t just a tactic; it’s the bedrock of lasting achievement.

If you struggle with keeping your team happy and balanced, make sure to keep track of team morale and remove any kinds of distraction such as inefficient low-value meetings.

Geekbot will help you with both: use our automated team surveys to check in with your teammates and replace long, bland meetings with  quick, asynchronous check-ins directly in your messengers.

Free Geekbot, forever, for up to 10 users!

Join a thriving community of 200,000+ team players! Experience enhanced team bonding with Geekbot – Start your free 30-day trial today!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Get updates from Geekbot

Sign up to our newsletter and stay updated with Geekbot developements

Thank you for subscribing