proactive problem solving affected by

How To Create A Proactive Problem-Solving Culture? 10 Useful strategies

Last Updated: December 17, 2023 | by Paul Harstrom

How can one establish a proactive problem-solving culture? Before addressing this query, let us understand the rationale behind the need for such a culture in the first place.

Even the most well-established and reputable companies often face situations where customers express dissatisfaction by posting negative reviews about their products or services on social media.

Occasionally, companies respond to these complaints by offering apologies, refunds, or solutions, but only after the damage is already done. So, they kind of lost out this way. This reactive strategy can lead to potential customer dissatisfaction and harm the brand’s reputation.

Now imagine a company, where employees are actively monitoring customer feedback, analyzing trends, and identifying potential issues before they escalate. If they notice a pattern of dissatisfaction or receive early complaints, they take proactive measures.

This could involve reaching out to affected customers, implementing improvements to the product or service based on feedback, and communicating transparently about changes. By addressing concerns before they become widespread issues, the business maintains customer satisfaction, loyalty, and a positive brand image.

Hence, a reactive approach involves addressing complaints only after they have gained attention, potentially causing damage to the business’s reputation.

In contrast, a proactive approach to problem solving culture focuses on identifying and addressing customer concerns before they become critical, promoting a more efficient and resilient operation.

LEAD Diligently helps faith-driven executives gain clarity and wisdom to grow profitable enterprises. In this article, you are going to learn 10 useful strategies to create a proactive problem-solving culture so that you can enhance your organizational performance and grow profitably .

What Is A Proactive Problem-Solving Culture?

In the words of business visionary Peter Drucker:

“The best way to predict the future is to create it.” Peter Drucker

This ethos encapsulates the essence of a Proactive Problem-Solving Culture—an organizational mindset where potential challenges are addressed before they burgeon into critical issues, setting the stage for a company’s success.

In a proactive problem-solving culture, employees are encouraged to be forward-thinking and take the initiative to identify potential problems, analyze their root causes, and implement solutions. This approach contrasts with a reactive mindset, where actions are taken only after a problem has already occurred.

Building a proactive problem-solving culture involves creating an environment that values continuous improvement , open communication, and empowerment.

It encourages employees at all levels to think critically, share insights, and collaborate on innovative solutions. If you want to maximize the productivity of your employees click here to learn 5 scientifically proven ways to motivate and engage employees in the workplace .

How to Create a Proactive Problem-Solving Culture? (10 strategies):

Addressing issues in a company and solving problems effectively requires a systematic and proactive approach. Here’s a structured guide including 10 valuable strategies to create an effective problem-solving environment:

Acknowledge Issues:

Start by acknowledging and recognizing the existence of issues within the company. Utilize regular assessments, encourage open feedback, and monitor performance metrics diligently.

Categorize and Prioritize:

Categorize identified issues based on their nature, urgency, and impact on the organization. Prioritize them to focus on the most critical problems that need immediate attention.

Create an Issues List:

Establish an “issues list” to systematically track and document identified challenges. This list should be regularly reviewed and updated, providing a clear overview of ongoing issues. These can be challenges, opportunities, or unresolved matters.

Regularly revisit the issues list, assess the impact of implemented solutions, and refine strategies based on the evolving company’s demands.

Transition from Identification to Action:

Issues that are identified as potential company rocks , or priorities, but not immediately addressed as individual rocks should move to the issues list.

This list serves as a backlog of items that may require attention in the future . Decide when the right time is to address each issue.

Implement Structured Problem-Solving Sessions:

Conduct structured problem-solving sessions or meetings. These sessions should be action-oriented, focusing on finding solutions rather than dwelling on the problems.

Prioritize Implementation Over Discussion:

Emphasize the importance of implementing solutions rather than spending excessive time discussing issues. The goal is to move from identifying problems to actively resolving them.

Strategic Decision-Making with Deadlines:

Set specific timeframes for strategic decision-making through proactive problem management . It can be achieved by determining deadlines for resolving specific issues, such as making final decisions about new hires within 90 days.

Cultivate Individual Accountability:

Encourage a sense of individual accountability . Assign specific responsibilities to team members for addressing and resolving particular issues. Consider the concept of “individual rocks” as tasks or priorities individuals commit to.

Click here to learn 7 tips to create a culture of accountability in the workplace.

Integrate Future Planning:

Incorporate forward-looking planning into the problem-solving process. Consider future quarterly planning sessions where issues can be anticipated, and strategies can be developed to address them proactively.

Document and Analyze:

Document the entire problem-solving process, including the identified issues, proposed solutions, and the outcomes or plan for resolution. The goal is to prevent important matters from being forgotten and to have a structured approach to addressing them.

Concluding 10 Useful Strategies To Create A Proactive Problem-Solving Culture

10 Useful Strategies mentioned above help leaders Create A Proactive Problem Solving Culture in their companies. Adopting this structured approach not only addresses current issues but also anticipates and mitigates challenges in the future.

Did you find these strategies useful? Enlighten us with your thoughts in the comment section below!

Can you provide examples of companies that have successfully created a proactive problem-solving culture?

Many tech giants, such as Google and Microsoft, are known for promoting proactive problem-solving cultures. They encourage employees to engage in continuous improvement and innovation, encouraging them to address challenges before they escalate.

How does technology contribute to problem-solving in modern workplaces?

Technology plays a pivotal role by providing tools for data analysis, communication, and collaboration. Platforms like project management software , data analytics tools, and collaborative platforms enable teams to anticipate issues, share insights, and collectively address problems in real-time, contributing to a proactive work environment.

What steps can employees take individually to contribute to a proactive problem-solving culture within their teams or departments?

Employees can contribute by staying vigilant and identifying potential issues early on. Actively participating in team discussions, proposing effective solutions, and taking the initiative to address small problems before they arise are necessary steps.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

Is Your Business Healthy and Fortified For Growth?

Take Our Assessment to Uncover Opportunities and Pinpoint Challenges

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Worry Impairs the Problem-Solving Process: Results from an Experimental Study

Sandra j. llera.

a Department of Psychology, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD 21252.

Michelle G. Newman

b Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, 140 Moore Building, University Park, PA 16801.

Associated Data

Introduction:.

Many individuals believe that worry helps solve real-life problems. Some researchers also purport that nonpathological worry can aid problem solving. However, this is in contrast to evidence that worry impairs cognitive functioning.

This was the first study to empirically test the effects of a laboratory-based worry induction on problem-solving abilities.

Both high ( n = 96) and low ( n = 89) trait worriers described a current problem in their lives. They were then randomly assigned to contemplate their problem in a worrisome ( n = 60) or objective ( n = 63) manner or to engage in a diaphragmatic breathing task ( n = 62). All participants subsequently generated solutions and then selected their most effective solution. Next, they rated their confidence in the solution’s effectiveness, their likelihood to implement the solution, and their current anxiety/worry. Experimenters uninformed of condition also rated solution effectiveness.

The worry induction led to lower reported confidence in solutions for high trait worry participants, and lower experimenter-rated effectiveness of solutions for all participants, relative to objective thinking. Further, state worry predicted less reported intention to implement solutions, while controlling for trait worry. Finally, worrying about the problem led to more elevated worry and anxiety after solving the problem compared to the other two conditions.

CONCLUSIONS:

Overall, the worry induction impaired problem solving on multiple levels, and this was true for both high and low trait worriers.

Worry is the defining feature of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ), but it is also a common experience for most individuals. Though many report the belief that worry has benefits for coping with potential threats ( Borkovec & Roemer, 1995 ; Hebert, Dugas, Tulloch, & Holowka, 2014 ), a wide literature documents its negative impact on cognitive, emotional, and behavioral levels. Despite being extensively researched, the effects of worry on some aspects of cognitive functioning and behavioral motivation remain understudied and require further exploration.

Several theories suggest that worry negatively affects cognitive functioning. The Attentional Control Theory ( Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007 ), posits that worry demands attentional resources that could be allocated to other cognitive capacities and thus creates cognitive impairment. Similarly, Affective Neuroscience theories propose that worry increases cognitive load and interferes with the capacity to ignore task-irrelevant matters ( Beaudreau, MacKay-Brandt, & Reynolds, 2013 ). These theories further posit that because worrisome thoughts are attentionally demanding, additional resources are required to inhibit worry in order to focus attention elsewhere. Thus, worry may interfere with tasks that compete for executive functioning resources.

This perspective has garnered empirical support. High trait worriers performed slower than controls on a number of cognitive and decision-making tasks, in both clinical ( LaFreniere & Newman, 2019 ; Stefanopoulou, Hirsch, Hayes, Adlam, & Coker, 2014 ) and non-clinical ( Tallis, Eysenck, & Mathews, 1991 ) samples. In a meta-analysis of 94 studies, recurrent negative thinking, including trait worry, was associated with impaired ability to discard irrelevant information from working memory ( Zetsche, Bürkner, & Schulze, 2018 ). Additionally, impaired cognitive functioning, such as difficulty concentrating, slowed learning, and delayed decision-making, has been associated with GAD status in both undergraduate ( LaFreniere & Newman, 2019 ; Pawluk & Koerner, 2013 ) and community GAD samples ( Hallion, Steinman, & Kusmierski, 2018 ). Similar to trait-level worry, experimentally manipulated state worry has also been found to reduce working memory ( Rapee, 1993 ; Trezise & Reeve, 2016 ) and attentional control ( Hayes, Hirsch, & Mathews, 2008 ; Stefanopoulou et al., 2014 ). Further, efforts to inhibit state worry depleted working memory and performance on cognitive tasks ( Hallion, Ruscio, & Jha, 2014 ). Thus, both trait and state worry independently have been associated with cognitive impairment.

Similar to evidence of the association between trait/state worry and impaired cognitive functioning, there have been questions as to whether worry impacts problem-solving abilities. D’Zurilla and Goldfried (1971) suggest that effective problem-solving requires five major components. These include: 1) problem orientation (i.e., confidence in and perceived control over the problem-solving process), 2) problem definition and goal identification, 3) generating solutions, 4) decision making, and 5) implementation/verification. Accordingly, impairment at any one of these levels would hinder one’s ability to resolve problems.

On the one hand, many individuals, especially those with GAD symptoms, believe that worry is helpful when solving problems. In fact, such beliefs predicted worry severity levels ( Hebert et al., 2014 ), and were able to distinguish those with GAD from controls ( Borkovec & Roemer, 1995 ). Further, beliefs that worry was helpful in the face of problems, or that persistent thinking was required in order to find the best solution, both predicted trait worry levels ( Kelly & Kelly, 2007 ; Sugiura, 2007 ). In fact, when tested on their ability to solve hypothetical problems in a laboratory setting, anxious participants performed no differently than controls ( Anderson, Goddard, & Powell, 2009 ), and in an unselected student sample these abilities were uncorrelated with trait worry ( Davey, 1994 ).

On the other hand, however, there is reason to believe that the act of worrying and/or trait worry might be associated with impairment in the real world. Negative effects of worry on problem-solving could happen in several ways. Worrying about a problem could increase cognitive load ( Beaudreau, MacKay-Brandt, & Reynolds, 2013 ), interfering with one’s ability to focus on effective solution generation. This could induce lower confidence in one’s abilities to generate effective solutions, leading individuals to stall or avoid decision-making ( D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971 ) or to prematurely dismiss possible solutions as likely to be ineffective. Additionally, worry could provoke repetitive rehearsal of the problem and/or focus on potential negative outcomes ( Mathews, 1990 ), thereby interfering with effective solution generation and implementation. Trait worry could also have negative effects. These could include difficulty tolerating the uncertainty inherent in the problem-solving process ( Dugas, Gagnon, Ladouceur, & Freeston, 1998 ), which might be linked to the higher “evidence requirements” seen in chronic worriers when making decisions ( Tallis et al., 1991 ). This, in addition to heightened attentional bias toward threat ( Goodwin, Yiend and Hirsch, 2017 ), could serve to prolong indecision in the face of real-life problems while the worrier attempts to gather more information. Finally, the Contrast Avoidance model of GAD ( Newman & Llera, 2011 ) would suggest that for chronic worriers, reluctance to implement solutions could be due to a fear of getting one’s hopes up only to be confronted with failure (i.e., emotional contrast). In fact, it is possible that multiple factors could work together to impair problem-solving abilities.

In support of impairment related to chronic worry, Davey, Hampton, Farrell, and Davidson (1992) identified a link between harboring a negative attitude toward problems, termed negative problem orientation (NPO), and high trait worry. Since then, NPO has been linked with anxiety and trait worry in both clinical ( Dugas et al., 1998 ; Fergus, Valentiner, Wu, & McGrath, 2015 ; Ladouceur, Blais, Freeston, & Dugas, 1998 ) and non-clinical samples ( Anderson et al., 2009 ; Robichaud & Dugas, 2005 ). Notably, NPO was more robustly associated with trait worry over other anxiety, mood, and obsessive symptoms in a mixed-clinical sample ( Fergus et al., 2015 ). Additional studies found trait worry to be associated with impairment in other aspects of the problem-solving process, such as skills and/or knowledge base. For example, Borkovec (1985) observed that whereas chronic worriers were very good at defining their problems and identifying possible negative outcomes, they often had difficulty implementing solutions. Further, when assessing real-life problem solving based on daily diary and recall data, a mixed anxious-depressed group demonstrated fewer functional cognitions and behaviors, and less effective solutions, than did controls ( Anderson et al., 2009 ).

Although such research on the nature of chronic worriers tends to converge, the extent to which the act of worrying itself impairs problem solving represents a point of contention within the field. Some researchers have argued that worry interferes with successful problem resolution across the board, whereas others contend that this may only apply to pathological worriers (i.e., those for whom worry is excessive and uncontrollable). Mathews (1990) adopted the first stance, arguing that although worry may begin as attempted problem solving, it predominantly leads to the cognitive rehearsal of danger for everyone. Taking the second stance, Davey and colleagues ( Davey, 1994 ; Davey et al., 1992 ) proposed that worry may actually enhance problem solving for many individuals, but that this process can become thwarted for those with high levels of trait worry. The latter argument was based in part on evidence that trait worry was associated with some active coping styles (e.g., information seeking) when controlling for trait anxiety in unselected student samples ( Davey et al., 1992 ). Therefore, Davey and colleagues concluded that for some individuals worry might be an adaptive or constructive approach when confronting a problem.

Nonetheless, an abundance of data shows that worry increases state negative affect and arousal for all individuals (see Newman & Llera, 2011 ; Newman et al., 2019 ; Ottaviani et al., 2016 ), which itself may impact the problem-solving process. For instance, a negative mood induction increased perseveration and catastrophizing on a high-responsibility task ( Startup & Davey, 2003 ), which could have negative implications for problem solving. Furthermore, daily diary studies have found that the intensity of state worry was associated with more anticipation of negative outcomes, greater negative evaluation of solutions to problems, more self-blame, and lower rates of solution selection during worry episodes, in samples including both high and low trait worriers ( Szabó & Lovibond, 2002 , 2006 ). Additionally, state levels of anxious thinking, including worry, were associated with lower problem-solving effectiveness in a community GAD sample ( Pawluk, Koerner, Tallon, & Antony, 2017 ).

In summary, although there is strong evidence to suggest that worry is associated with impairment in problem solving, none of the studies reviewed above experimentally manipulated worry when testing problem-solving abilities. Therefore, it is impossible to determine the extent to which worry itself causally impacted the problem-solving process, as opposed to other characteristics associated with state or trait worry. Interestingly, depressive rumination (a close conceptual relative to worry) has been shown to impact both mood and the problem-solving process across several studies. For example, experimentally induced rumination (versus distraction) led to lower mood in a non-clinical dysphoric sample, and resulted in generating less effective solutions for hypothetical problems, as well as reduced likelihood of implementing solutions for a personal problem ( Lyubomirsky & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1995 ; Lyubomirsky, Tucker, Caldwell, & Berg, 1999 ). The absence of similar research on the effect of worry represents a critical gap in our understanding of this phenomenon.

In this study, we sought to address this gap by testing the effects of experimentally manipulated worry on problem solving using a sample of individuals with both high and low trait worry. In this way, we were able to test whether inducing state worry would hinder problem solving for all participants, thereby supporting Matthews’ (1990) perspective, or if it would enhance problem-solving in low trait worriers and only become problematic at high trait levels, thus supporting Davey and colleagues’ perspective ( Davey, 1994 ; Davey et al., 1992 ). We chose to observe the effects of worrying about a real-life problem, as opposed to a hypothetical problem, in order to increase external validity. As a comparison condition, we chose the problem definition stage of problem solving as outlined in D’Zurilla and Goldfried (1971) . This allowed us to equalize the amount of time spent contemplating the problem, but to channel thinking into styles typical of a worry episode versus thinking in a more objective, emotionally neutral manner. As an additional control condition, a third group engaged in a diaphragmatic breathing task. Immediately afterward, all groups were instructed to brainstorm solutions to their problem and choose the solution they thought would be most successful. We tested a variety of outcomes related to problem solving, including the number of solutions generated, self-reported and experimenter-rated effectiveness of solutions, as well as participant ratings of intention to implement solutions. Further, we assessed state levels of anxiety and worry following the solution-generation phase, to determine the extent to which participants felt calmer once a solution had been identified.

We hypothesized that relative to objective thinking or diaphragmatic breathing instructions, worrying about a problem would lead to 1) generating fewer solutions during brainstorming, 2) generating less effective solutions (based on both participants’ and judge’s ratings), and 3) lower intention to implement solutions. Further, we hypothesized that 4) worrying would lead to lingering anxiety and worry following solution generation, relative to other conditions. We also hypothesized that these effects would be observed for both high and low trait worriers alike.

Research Design and Method

Overall design.

A 2 (Group: High vs. Low Trait Worry) X 3 (Condition: Worry, Think Objectively, Diaphragmatic Breathing) block design was used to determine the effects of worrying about a problem on various outcomes related to problem-solving.

Participants and Measures

The current study recruited 185 volunteers from psychology courses in a public university. Students received class credit as compensation. Participants were largely young adult (M = 20.06 years, SD = 6.47) females (76.8%), with 57.8% identifying as White, 24.3% African American, 7.6% Asian, 6.2% Hispanic/Latinx, 1% American Indian/Pacific Islander, and 8.6% other (e.g., “mixed race”).

Participants were selected based on their scores on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Meyer, Miller, Metzger, & Borkovec, 1990 ), a 16-item self-report measure designed to assess the frequency, intensity, and uncontrollability characteristics of trait worry. The PSWQ demonstrates strong internal consistency (Chronbach’s α = .91; Meyer et al., 1990 ) and retest reliability (.74 – .93; Molina & Borkovec, 1994 ). Internal consistency for the current sample was high (α = .95). Participants also completed the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire (GAD-Q-IV; Newman et al., 2002 ) to assess for clinical-level GAD symptoms. The GAD-Q-IV is a 9-item self-report questionnaire based on diagnostic criteria for GAD. It demonstrates strong internal consistency (α = .94) and good retest reliability. A cut-score of 5.7 leads to 83% sensitivity and 89% specificity relative to a structured diagnostic interview ( Newman et al., 2002 ). Internal consistency for the current sample was high (α = .91).

Participants were included in the High Trait Worry group (N = 96) if they scored in the upper range on the PSWQ (≥ 60) during a pre-screen. On the day of testing, the High Trait Worry PSWQ score mean was comparable to that found in GAD patient samples (M = 66.68, SD = 9.47; see Startup & Erickson, 2006 ). The High Trait Worry mean on the GAD-Q-IV was also well above the clinical cut-score (M = 8.58, SD = 2.35). Participants were included in the Low Trait Worry group (N = 89) if they scored in the mid-low range on the PSWQ (≤ 45). On the day of testing, scores in this group were comparable to those of nonanxious samples from other studies (M = 41.02, SD = 11.93; see Startup & Erickson, 2006 ). Further, the Low Trait Worry group scored well below the cut-score on the GAD-Q-IV (M = 3.66, SD = 2.82).

This study was approved by the university IRB. Participants were each tested alone in a private room equipped with a computer. All instructions and tasks were completed using the Qualtrics survey platform (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). Participants first provided informed consent, and then completed demographic questions along with the PSWQ and GAD-Q-IV. Next, they completed baseline state measures, comprised of 4 items: worry , anxiety , relaxation , and mood . They were instructed to rate each item based on how they felt right now . The first 3 items were rated on a scale of 0 ( not at all ) to 100 ( extremely ). Mood was rated from 0 ( very negative ) to 100 ( very positive ).

Participants were next instructed to identify a current, real-life problem; specifically, one that was affecting them right now, and for which they had some control over the outcome. The latter requirement was to assist in identifying a problem for which there were possible solutions, as opposed to an uncontrollable issue (e.g., a loved one’s terminal illness). They were then asked to briefly describe their problem by typing it out on the computer.

Next, participants were randomly assigned to either a Worry (WOR; N = 60) or Think Objectively (T-OBJ; N = 63) task, with the remaining third assigned to a Diaphragmatic Breathing (DB; N = 62) task. The primary distinction between WOR and T-OBJ conditions was that participants either worried or did not worry over their problem. To that end, instructions for the WOR task were based on the definition of worry as negatively valanced cognitive activity focused on a threat, along with consideration of potential negative outcomes (i.e., negative emotional and catastrophic thinking; Borkovec, 1985 ; Borkovec, Robinson, Pruzinsky, & DePree, 1983 ). Those in the WOR task were therefore instructed to worry about their problem, with an emphasis on their concerns along with possible negative outcomes and implications (see supplement for full instructions ). To control for the amount of time spent contemplating the problem, but to do so in a non-emotional, non-catastrophic manner, instructions for the T-OBJ task were based on the problem definition stage of problem solving ( D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971 ). Participants in the T-OBJ task were instructed to attempt to focus on their problem in a more objective, emotionally neutral manner, such as by breaking it down into smaller components and coming up with ultimate goals. If they found themselves focusing on negative thoughts, participants were instructed to refocus their attention back on the problem itself.

After receiving these instructions, participants in the WOR and T-OBJ conditions were asked to think about their problem for 2 minutes in the specified manner. Those in the DB task were given instructions to engage in diaphragmatic breathing for 2 minutes.

Following this task, and to determine whether the manipulations had their intended effects, all participants again completed state measures of worry , anxiety , relaxation , and mood . This was to ensure that conditions led to three distinct groups: one that had engaged in emotional/catastrophic thinking (WOR), one that had engaged in non-emotional, non-catastrophic thinking (T-OBJ), and one that had engaged in a relaxation-inducing breathing task (DB). As such, distinctions on state levels of worry , anxiety , relaxation , and mood between conditions served as compliance checks for adherence to the manipulations.

Immediately afterward, all participants were asked to generate as many solutions to their problem as they could for 2 minutes, representing the brainstorming stage of problem solving. Solutions were typed out on the computer. Next, they were instructed to reflect on these ideas and choose their “best, most effective” solution, representing the decision-making stage. Once finished, they ranked how confident they felt that this solution would be effective, as well as how likely they were to actually carry it out, on a scale of 0 ( not at all confident/likely ) to 100 ( very confident/likely ). They then provided final ratings of current state worry and anxiety and were debriefed about the study.

Once data collection was complete, a judge uninformed of condition rated participants’ self-identified “best” solutions for their effectiveness on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all effective , to 7 = extremely effective ), identical to that used in similar studies ( Lyubomirsky & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1995 ; Lyubomirsky et al., 1999 ). To determine this score, they rated the likelihood that participants’ solutions would lead to successful resolution of the problem (i.e., maximize positive consequences and minimize negative ones, and not create additional problems; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971 ). For example, if participants listed a solution that would likely improve or resolve the situation (e.g., behavior that would directly enhance their performance in a class, etc.), that was rated as more effective. If their solution was unlikely to improve or resolve the situation, or could potentially exacerbate the issue (e.g., distraction from or avoidance of the problem, etc.), it would be rated as less effective. A second independent judge who was also uninformed of condition rated a random selection of 25% of responses, with evidence of sufficient interrater reliability (ICC = .7). (See Supplemental Materials for an overview of the process used to ensure reliability of judges’ ratings.)

Data Analytic Plan

We first tested whether there were any differences at baseline on measures of state worry , anxiety , relaxation , and mood , using a 2 (Group: High/Low Trait Worry) X 3 (Condition: WOR, T-OBJ, DB) MANOVA. Next, to test that WOR, T-OBJ, and DB tasks had the intended effects, we ran a similar MANOVA but with ratings of state measures of worry , anxiety , relaxation , and mood immediately following the induction as manipulation checks.

To test the 4 main hypotheses, we ran a series of factorial ANOVAs, using Group and Condition as predictors. Outcome variables included 1) the number of solutions participants generated during the brainstorming phase, 2) participant and judge’s ratings of effectiveness of solutions, and 3) ratings of intention to implement solutions. Finally, to determine the presence of any lingering anxiety and worry after participants chose their best solution (4), we ran a MANOVA with Group and Condition as predictors, and state worry and anxiety levels after identifying “best” solutions as outcomes.

In the case of nonsignificant findings, we ran exploratory secondary analyses in the form of hierarchical linear regression models to test if reported state worry levels following the WOR/T-OBJ/DB tasks could predict problem-solving outcomes, while controlling for trait worry. The purpose of these analyses was to determine if the extent to which participants reported actually worrying during the induction would be a better predictor than their assigned condition, while also controlling for the possible influence of trait worry on these outcomes. To do so, we entered PSWQ in the first block of the model, followed by state worry levels in the second block. To address any issues of non-normality, bootstrapping using 1000 samples was applied to all ANOVAs and regressions.

Baseline Measures and Manipulation Check

At baseline, there was a main effect of Group, F (4, 176) = 15.92, p < .001, η 2 p = .27. As expected, the High Trait Worry group reported more baseline worry and anxiety than did the Low Trait Worry group. Further, the Low Trait Worry group reported more baseline relaxation and better mood than did the High Trait Worry group (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). There was no main effect of Condition; F (8, 354) = 1.55, p = .139, η 2 p = .03; and no Group X Condition interaction; F (8, 354) = 1.07, p = .385, η 2 p = .02; suggesting no significant baseline differences between conditions.

State Measures at Baseline and Post Problem-Thinking Task

Note . Reported raw means with standard deviations in parentheses. WOR/W = worry task, T-OBJ/O = think objectively task, DB = diaphragmatic breathing task, ns = non-significant.

Following the WOR, T-OBJ, and DB tasks, our manipulation check measures showed a main effect of Group, F (4, 176) = 15.07, p < .001, η 2 p = .26. The High Trait Worry group reported significantly more worry and anxiety , lower relaxation , and worse mood than the Low Trait Worry group, regardless of their assigned task. More importantly, however, there was a main effect of Condition; F (8, 354) = 8.75, p < .001, η 2 p = .17; such that WOR led to significantly higher ratings of worry and anxiety than T-OBJ and DB, and T-OBJ led to higher ratings than DB. WOR also led to significantly worse mood than both T-OBJ and DB, which were not significantly different from one-another. Finally, DB led to significantly higher relaxation than both T-OBJ and WOR, and T-OBJ was higher than WOR (see Table 1 ). There was no significant Group X Condition interaction, F (8, 354) = .93, p = .494, η 2 p = .02. As such, data suggest that these tasks operated in the intended way for both High and Low Trait Worry groups.

Main Hypotheses

Number of solutions..

Contrary to predictions, there were no main effects of Group; F (1, 178) = .67, p = .414, η 2 p = .00; or Condition; F (2, 178) = 2.61, p = .076, η 2 p = .03; and no interaction; F (2, 178) = .87, p = .419, η 2 p = .01; on number of solutions generated during the brainstorming period. In a follow-up regression, the first block of the model, consisting of the PSWQ, was not significant; F (1,181) = .17, p = .685; and accounted for only 0.1% of the total variance. Adding state worry levels to the model did not significantly increase predictive value; F (1,180) = 1.52, p = .221; and only accounted for an additional 1.6% of the variance.

Effectiveness of solutions.

In terms of participants’ own ratings of their confidence in solution effectiveness, there was a main effect of Group; F (1, 178) = 9.13, p = .003, η 2 p = .05. Overall, High Trait Worriers reported less confidence in the effectiveness of their solutions (M = 66.73, SD = 22.31) than did Low Trait Worriers (M = 76.25, SD = 23.57), regardless of condition. There was no main effect of Condition; F (2, 178) = 1.01, p = .367, η 2 p = .01; but there was a significant Group X Condition interaction; F (2, 178) = 4.54, p = .012, η 2 p = .05. When divided by Group, High Trait Worriers in the WOR condition rated confidence in their selected solution as significantly lower (M = 57.77, SD = 29.46) than those in T-OBJ (M = 72.97, SD = 15.0; p = .017), and marginally lower than those in DB (M = 68.97, SD = 18.06; p = .076), but this did not reach significance. There were no significant differences between T-OBJ and DB ( p = .347; see Figure 1 ). Low Trait Worriers did not demonstrate significant differences by condition (all p ’s > .05).

Participant Ratings of Confidence in Effectiveness of Solutions for the High Trait Worry Group

Note. WOR = worry task, T-OBJ = think objectively task, DB = diaphragmatic breathing task, * p < .05.

In terms of judge’s ratings, there was a main effect of Condition; F (2, 177) = 5.08, p = .007, η 2 p = .05. Those in the T-OBJ condition were judged to have generated significantly more effective solutions (M = 5.77, SD = .93) than those in WOR (M = 5.18, SD = 1.19, p = .004) and DB (M = 5.21, SD = 1.38, p = .009), which were not significantly different from each other ( p = .938). Observed differences were modest, but nonetheless significant (see Figure 2 ). There was neither a main effect of Group; F (1, 177) = .14, p = .711, η 2 p = .001; nor an interaction; F (2, 177) = 1.85, p = .161, η 2 p = .02.

Judge’s Ratings of Effectiveness of Solutions across High and Low Trait Worry Groups

Note. WOR = worry task, T-OBJ = think objectively task, DB = diaphragmatic breathing task, ** p < .01.

Intention to implement solutions.

Contrary to predictions, there were no main effects of Group; F (1, 178) = 3.00, p = .085, η 2 p = .02; Condition; F (2, 178) = .21, p = .814, η 2 p = .00; or an interaction; F (2, 178) = 2.34, p = .10, η 2 p = .03; on participants’ ratings of intention to implement their solutions. A follow-up regression indicated that trait and state worry together significantly predicted intention, accounting for 5.5% of the total variance. When entered first, the PSWQ was a negative predictor of intention ( β = −.158, p = .032), such that higher trait worry predicted less reported intention. Upon adding state worry levels, the model’s predictive value significantly increased (Δ R 2 = .03, p = .017). Higher state worry also predicted less reported intention to implement solutions ( β = −.212, p = .020), but importantly, trait worry was no longer a significant predictor in the full model (see Table 2 ).

Trait and State Worry Predicting Intention to Implement Solutions

Note. Confidence intervals and standard errors are based on 1000 bootstrapped samples. PSWQ = Penn State Worry Questionnaire, Worry = self-reported state worry levels post problem-thinking task,

Worry and anxiety levels after choosing a solution.

There was a main effect of Group; F (2, 178) = 18.17, p < .001, η 2 p = .17. On average, High Trait Worriers reported greater worry (M = 40.53, SD = 26.04) and anxiety (M = 42.80, SD = 25.97) than did Low Trait Worriers (M = 21.91, SD = 26.59; M = 21.12, SD = 25.11, respectively) after generating their solutions, regardless of condition. Consistent with hypotheses, there was also a main effect of Condition; F (4, 358) = 4.27, p = .002, η 2 p = .05. All participants in the WOR condition reported significantly greater worry (M = 40.82, SD = 29.68) and anxiety (M = 41.90, SD = 29.40) following solution generation compared to those in T-OBJ (M = 31.10, SD = 25.55, p = .047; M = 32.11, SD = 27.69, p = .030; respectively) and DB (M = 23.11, SD = 25.80, p = .002; M = 23.42, SD = 23.01, p < .001; respectively). Those in the T-OBJ condition also reported greater anxiety than those in DB ( p = .042), but not greater worry ( p = .071; see Figure 3 ). There was no Group X Condition interaction; F (4, 358) = .87, p = .484, η 2 p = .01.

Post-Solution Generation State Levels

Note. WOR = worry task, T-OBJ = think objectively task, DB = diaphragmatic breathing task, * p < .05, ** p < .01

Research has long suggested the possibility of a connection between worry and impaired problem solving; yet no prior study has experimentally manipulated worry to test for a causal link. In this study we tested the effects of a controlled worry manipulation on several factors related to the problem-solving process, using both high and low trait worriers. Ultimately, we found that worrying about a real-life problem, relative to attempting to think about the problem objectively or diaphragmatic breathing, led to interference at multiple levels of problem solving. These findings held true at least in part for both high and low trait worriers alike.

Several findings emerged in terms of the effects of trait or state worry on aspects of the problem solving process. Contrary to our expectations, we found no differences for Group or Condition on the number of solutions participants generated when asked to brainstorm ways to solve their problems. This is not to say that all solutions were of equal quality. For example, some participants listed ideas such as, “ignore it until later”, “get some sushi”, and “do nothing”, alongside more effective ideas (e.g., “join a study group”, “make a budget and stick to it”). Listing as many ideas as possible without judgment while in the brainstorming phase is considered beneficial for problem solving ( D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971 ). Our data suggested that both trait worry status and condition type neither significantly helped nor hindered brainstorming performance, and that specific negative effects of worry only emerged later in the problem-solving process.

After choosing the “best” of these solutions, however, high trait worriers reported lower confidence in the effectiveness of their chosen solution compared to low trait worriers, regardless of condition. Also, high trait worriers who worried before generating solutions reported significantly lower confidence in their chosen solution than did those instructed to think about their problems more objectively. They also reported marginally lower confidence than those who engaged in a diaphragmatic breathing exercise, though this did not reach significance. This is consistent with prior findings that chronic worriers reported lower confidence in their ability to solve problems relative to nonanxious controls (e.g., Anderson et al., 2009 ; Ladouceur et al., 1998 ); however, this is the first study to demonstrate that in high trait worriers, the specific act of worrying reduced problem-solving confidence. In low trait worriers, on the other hand, worry (vs other conditions) did not lead to a significantly different impact on confidence in their solutions’ effectiveness.

The fact that a prior worry induction only reduced confidence for chronic worriers is more in line with the perspective articulated by Davey and colleagues ( Davey, 1994 ; Davey et al., 1992 ), who argued that factors such as low problem-solving confidence would impair problem solving, but only for pathological worriers. Notably, high trait worriers who were instructed to think objectively reported mean confidence scores that were significantly higher than those instructed to worry. These results imply that instructing chronic worriers to think about their problems in a more objective manner, and to refrain from negative thinking, may counteract such pessimistic beliefs and enhance confidence levels. However, contrary to Davey’s theory, there was no significant benefit of worry on confidence in low trait worriers. Thus, whereas the worry induction impaired confidence in high trait worriers, it neither helped nor hindered confidence in low trait worriers.

As opposed to participants’ subjective ratings of confidence in their solutions’ effectiveness, ratings made by an independent judge reflected our attempts to objectively rate whether the solution would be effective. In this case, a main effect of condition emerged across all participants. According to these ratings, attempting to think objectively about a problem led to a small but significant advantage in coming up with more effective solutions relative to both worrying and diaphragmatic breathing, which were not significantly different. As such, this finding does not represent a unique impairment effect of worry per se , but rather points to the benefits of attempting to contemplate problems in an objective, emotionally-neutral manner. It also indicates that although worrying did not reduce low trait worriers’ confidence in their solution effectiveness, such confidence was not matched by an independent judge.

To further unpack this finding, as a non-worry comparison individuals in the T-OBJ condition were instructed to think about their problem in a less emotional, more constructive way (i.e., breaking it down, focusing on their goals), without falling into negative or catastrophic thinking. We cannot rule out that this may have fueled more solution-focused thinking than worrying. In fact, the very act of focusing on a problem (whether it be catastrophically or objectively), likely made it difficult for participants not to consider various possible solutions during this manipulation period. If, however, those in the T-OBJ condition tended to naturally spend more time generating better solutions, this still supports the conclusion that worry detracts from problem solving, as it suggests that the negative and catastrophic thinking characteristic of worry interferes with more constructive processes and ultimately detracts from coming up with good solutions. It also suggests this can happen for both high and low trait worriers.

Regarding the lack of differences between WOR and DB on experimenter-rated effectiveness, it is important to note that those randomly assigned to the DB condition were not instructed to contemplate their problem at all prior to brainstorming solutions, but rather were instructed to focus attention on their breathing. That they were then able to generate impromptu solutions rated as not different from solutions of those who had actively worried over their problem beforehand, is a notable finding. This suggests that worrying about a problem offered no greater advantage in this context than did a diaphragmatic breathing exercise. It also contradicts the beliefs of many individuals, and especially those of chronic worriers, that worrying is necessary in order to find the best solution to a problem (e.g., Borkovec & Roemer, 1995 ; Hebert et al., 2014 ). Taken together, these findings are more consistent with Mathews’ (1990) proposition that for all individuals, the act of worrying is not actually helpful in terms of finding adequate solutions to problems.

In terms of participants’ reported intention to implement their solutions, there were no significant effects of Group or Condition. A follow-up exploratory regression analysis identified that the extent to which participants worried during their assigned task (irrespective of what that task was) predicted lower reported intention to engage in proactive action. This effect was not simply driven by those with higher trait worry, as state worry predicted ratings of intention when controlling for trait worry, and trait worry was no longer a significant predictor once state worry was entered in the model. This finding provides more clear support for Mathews’ (1990) stance on worry thwarting the problem-solving process, regardless of whether it is experienced at chronic levels or not. This also dovetails with the finding that depressive rumination reduced participants’ reported likelihood to implement solutions to their problems ( Lyubomirsky et al., 1999 ), suggesting that both forms of repetitive negative thinking may discourage engaging in such proactive behaviors. However, it should be noted that this analysis was simply a secondary, and more correlational, exploration of our data, and as such does not allow for more robust causal interpretations.

Finally, we found that for both high and low trait worriers, worrying about one’s problem led to significantly higher reported worry and anxiety levels even after having identified a solution, as compared to thinking objectively about the problem or relaxing. This is consistent with research showing that the negative effects of worry linger over time (e.g., Newman et al., 2019 ; Pieper, Brosschot, van der Leeden, & Thayer, 2010 ), and appears to hold true even after making a decision about the best course of action to ameliorate a problem. Thus, rather than feel a sense of resolution about the issue, with corresponding decreases in worry and anxiety, worrying before choosing a solution may instead lead to lingering feelings of doubt.

Overall, these results provide evidence that engaging in worry is detrimental to problem solving on multiple levels, which apart from reducing confidence in the process, appears to affect both high and low trait worriers alike. One explanation for these findings may be that, consistent with Attentional Control Theory ( Eysenck et al., 2007 ), worrying about a personal problem focused participants’ attention on threatening aspects of the situation (e.g., potential negative outcomes). As such, shifting from worrying into generating and evaluating solutions to the problem, (i.e., threat-related versus goal-directed attention) demanded additional cognitive resources. Attempting to think about the problem objectively, however, is more consistent with goal-directed attention and thus would not have required inhibition. In this way, attempting to think objectively may have allowed for greater access to cognitive resources while problem solving, and possibly more time spent contemplating solutions, relative to worrying. However, we did not measure these effects directly, other than to show that objective thinking facilitated generating more highly rated solution effectiveness than either worry or a breathing exercise.

Another explanation may be that the worry induction both increased cognitive load, and led to greater anxiety and worse mood, and these factors interacted to undermine the problem-solving process. According to Gray’s (1990) neuropsychology theory of emotions, anxiety triggers the behavioral inhibition system, promoting harm-avoidance over approach strategies in the face of a problem. This dovetails with the affect-as-information perspective, which states that affect influences judgment and decision-making ( Clore & Huntsinger, 2007 ). As such, in the context of problem solving, a negative mood may focus attention on potential obstacles to goals or unwanted outcomes, thus leading to pessimistic appraisals of one’s performance (see Schwarz & Skurnik, 2003 ). Our data support this trajectory based on the fact that worry 1) created greater negative affect in the moment, 2) led to sustained worry and anxiety levels even after participants had chosen a solution, 3) decreased confidence in effectiveness of solutions for the high worry group, 4) led to lower judge’s ratings of effectiveness, and 5) predicted less intention to implement solutions for all participants, while controlling for trait worry (though this latter finding was more correlational than causal). In sum, this suggests that worry led to negative cognitive and emotional effects, impairing problem solving at several stages of the process.

Overall, although the worry induction reduced problem-solving confidence only for high trait worriers, it led to a number of additional negative outcomes for all participants. As such, these data provide initial evidence that state worry hinders proactive problem solving across high and low trait worry levels. Moreover, despite the fact that low trait worriers reported a non-significant impact of worry on their confidence in solutions, it still predicted lower judge’s ratings of the solution effectiveness and less willingness to enact them. Therefore, results of this study provide more robust support for Mathews’ (1990) theory, suggesting that worry is a problematic strategy for all persons interested in resolving their problems.

This study has some notable limitations. Because high trait worry participants were not treatment-seeking, this limits our ability to generalize findings to clinically worried individuals. However, previous studies have identified impairment associated with worry in unselected samples (e.g., Hallion et al., 2014 ), as well as in samples of participants diagnosed with GAD (e.g., Pawluk et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, we hypothesized that the worry induction would impair problem solving even at low levels of trait worry, thus it was important to demonstrate that findings were not exclusive to a sample with clinically high levels of trait worry. Future studies should seek to replicate findings in clinical populations before such generalizations can be made. Moreover, because our study population consisted of college students, we cannot generalize findings to non-college student samples. As such these findings merit replication in other samples. On the other hand, our college student sample included adequate representation of racial diversity, with about 42% reflecting non-white groups.

Finally, because we asked participants to think about problems in their own lives, this may have led to some lack of uniformity in the complexity or severity level of problems participants were attempting to solve. For example, pathological worriers may be more likely than nonworriers to worry about even minor things. For this reason, we ensured that there was an equal balance of high and low trait worriers randomly assigned across conditions. Our procedure also directed participants to choose a problem for which they had some control over the outcome (i.e., we directed them to avoid problems for which there were no solutions). This may have also helped to prevent one group from selecting more intractable problems than another. Nonetheless, we cannot rule out the possibility that problem severity varied systematically across conditions leading to the effects we found. Considering that studies of problem solving in real-life settings have been better able to detect worry-related impairment (e.g., Szabó & Lovibond, 2006 ) relative to those using hypothetical problems in an laboratory setting (e.g., Davey, 1994 ), we strove to create a task that was both externally valid and experimentally rigorous. However, future studies may wish to increase uniformity of this variable, while attempting to maintain external validity (such as by balancing participants by the types of problems they report or by ratings of problem severity).

In sum, this was the first study to experimentally manipulate worry immediately prior to problem solving in a controlled laboratory setting, and provides initial evidence that the worry process is detrimental to problem solving in this context. Although many individuals are prone to worry in the face of problems, believe that this is a helpful approach to confronting problems, and often conflate worry with active problem solving (e.g., Kelly & Kelly, 2007 ; Sugiura, 2013 ; Szabó & Lovibond, 2002 ), our findings suggest otherwise. We argue that worry is distinct from adaptive problem solving. Whereas it does direct attention to potential threats, worrying about a problem inhibits the ability to proactively address threats in an optimal way, and instead may repeatedly cycle people through their worst-case scenario fears. Data from this study argue that attempting to take a more objective stance when evaluating a problem, and refraining from catastrophic thinking, represent the most effective problem-solving strategies for both high and low trait worry individuals alike.

• Worrying about a personal problem lowered confidence in solutions for high trait worriers.
• Thinking objectively about a problem led to more effective solutions than worrying or focused breathing.
• State worry predicted less intention to implement solutions, while controlling for trait worry.
• Worrying beforehand led to elevated worry and anxiety after solving a personal problem.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

This study was partially supported by NIMH 1R01MH115128-01A1 to Michelle Newman.

Declarations of interest: none

Sandra Llera: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing - Original draft preparation. Michelle G. Newman: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing - Review and editing.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5; 5th ed). Arlington, Virginia: American Psychiatric Association. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson RJ, Goddard L, & Powell JH (2009). Social problem-solving processes and mood in college students: An examination of self-report and performance-based approaches . Cognitive Therapy and Research , 33 , 175–186. doi: 10.1007/s10608-007-9169-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beaudreau SA, MacKay-Brandt A, & Reynolds J. (2013). Application of a cognitive neuroscience perspective of cognitive control to late-life anxiety . Journal of Anxiety Disorders , 27 , 559–566. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.03.006 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borkovec TD (1985). Worry: A potentially valuable concept . Behaviour Research and Therapy , 23 , 481–482. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(85)90178-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borkovec TD, Robinson E, Pruzinsky T, & DePree JA (1983). Preliminary exploration of worry: Some characteristics and processes . Behaviour Research and Therapy , 21 , 9–16. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(83)90121-3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borkovec TD, & Roemer L. (1995). Perceived functions of worry among generalized anxiety disorder subjects: Distraction from more emotionally distressing topics? Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry , 26 , 25–30. doi: 10.1016/0005-7916(94)00064-s [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clore GL, & Huntsinger JR (2007). How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought . Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 11 , 393–399. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.005 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• D’Zurilla TJ, & Goldfried MR (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification . Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 78 , 107–126. doi: 10.1037/h0031360 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davey GCL (1994). Worrying, social problem-solving abilities, and social problem-solving confidence . Behaviour Research and Therapy , 32 , 327–330. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(94)90130-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davey GC, Hampton J, Farrell J, & Davidson S. (1992). Some characteristics of worrying: Evidence for worrying and anxiety as separate constructs . Personality and Individual Differences , 13 , 133–147. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90036-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dugas MJ, Gagnon F, Ladouceur R, & Freeston MH (1998). Generalized anxiety disorder: A preliminary test of a conceptual model . Behaviour Research and Therapy , 36 , 215–226. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00070-3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eysenck MW, Derakshan N, Santos R, & Calvo MG (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory . Emotion , 7 , 336–353. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fergus TA, Valentiner DP, Wu KD, & McGrath PB (2015). Examining the symptom-level specificity of negative problem orientation in a clinical sample . Cognitive Behaviour Therapy , 44 , 153–161. doi: 10.1080/16506073.2014.987314 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin H, Yiend J, & Hirsch CR (2017). Generalized Anxiety Disorder, worry and attention to threat: A systematic review . Clinical Psychology Review , 54 , 107–122. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.03.006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray JA (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition . Cognition & Emotion , 4 , 269–288. doi: 10.1080/02699939008410799 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hallion LS, Ruscio AM, & Jha AP (2014). Fractionating the role of executive control in control over worry: A preliminary investigation . Behaviour Research and Therapy , 54 , 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2013.12.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hallion LS, Steinman SA, & Kusmierski SN (2018). Difficulty concentrating in generalized anxiety disorder: An evaluation of incremental utility and relationship to worry . Journal of Anxiety Disorders , 53 , 39–45. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2017.10.007 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes S, Hirsch C, & Mathews A. (2008). Restriction of working memory capacity during worry . Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 117 , 712–717. doi: 10.1037/a0012908 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hebert EA, Dugas MJ, Tulloch TG, & Holowka DW (2014). Positive beliefs about worry: A psychometric evaluation of the Why Worry-II . Personality and Individual Differences , 56 , 3–8. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly WE, & Kelly KE (2007). A tale of two shoulds: The relationship between worry, beliefs one should find a right solution, and beliefs one should worry to solve problems . North American Journal of Psychology , 9 , 103–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ladouceur R, Blais F, Freeston MH, & Dugas MJ (1998). Problem solving and problem orientation in generalized anxiety disorder . Journal of Anxiety Disorders , 12 , 139–152. doi: 10.1016/S0887-6185(98)00002-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LaFreniere LS, & Newman MG (2019). Probabilistic learning by positive and negative reinforcement in generalized anxiety disorder . Clinical Psychological Science , 7 , 502–515. doi: 10.1177/2167702618809366 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyubomirsky S, & Nolen-Hoeksema S. (1995). Effects of self-focused rumination on negative thinking and interpersonal problem solving . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 69 , 176. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.1.176 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyubomirsky S, Tucker KL, Caldwell ND, & Berg K. (1999). Why ruminators are poor problem solvers: Clues from the phenomenology of dysphoric rumination . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 77 , 1041. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1041 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mathews A. (1990). Why worry? The cognitive function of anxiety . Behaviour Research and Therapy , 28 , 455–468. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(90)90132-3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer TJ, Miller ML, Metzger RL, & Borkovec TD, (1990) Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire . Behaviour Research and Therapy , 28 , 487–495. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molina S, & Borkovec TD (1994). The Penn State Worry Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and associated characteristics In Davey GCL & Tallis F (Eds.), Worrying: Perspectives on theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 265–283). Oxford, England: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman MG, Jacobson NC, Zainal NH, Shin KE, Szkodny LE, & Sliwinski MJ (2019). The effects of worry in daily life: An ecological momentary assessment study supporting the tenets of the contrast avoidance model . Clinical Psychological Science , 7 , 794–810. doi: 10.1177/2167702619827019 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman MG, & Llera SJ (2011). A novel theory of experiential avoidance in generalized anxiety disorder: A review and synthesis of research supporting a Contrast Avoidance Model of worry . Clinical Psychology Review , 31 , 371–382. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.01.008 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman MG, Zuellig AR, Kachin KE, Constantino MJ, Przeworski A, Erickson T, & Cashman-McGrath L. (2002). Preliminary reliability and validity of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire-IV: A revised self-report diagnostic measure of generalized anxiety disorder . Behavior Therapy , 33 , 215–233. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(02)80026-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ottaviani C, Thayer JF, Verkuil B, Lonigro A, Medea B, Couyoumdjian A, & Brosschot JF (2016). Physiological concomitants of perseverative cognition: A systematic review and meta-analysis . Psychological Bulletin , 142 , 231–259. doi: 10.1037/bul0000036 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pawluk EJ, & Koerner N. (2013). A preliminary investigation of impulsivity in generalized anxiety disorder . Personality and Individual Differences , 54 , 732–737. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.027 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pawluk EJ, Koerner N, Tallon K, & Antony MM (2017). Unique correlates of problem solving effectiveness in individuals with generalized anxiety disorder . Cognitive Therapy and Research , 41 , 881–890. doi: 10.1007/s10608-017-9861-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pieper S, Brosschot JF, van der Leeden R, & Thayer JF (2010). Prolonged cardiac effects of momentary assessed stressful events and worry episodes . Psychosomatic Medicine , 72 , 570–577. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181dbc0e9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rapee RM (1993). The utilisation of working memory by worry . Behaviour Research and Therapy , 31 , 617–620. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(93)90114-A [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robichaud M, & Dugas MJ (2005). Negative problem orientation (Part II): construct validity and specificity to worry . Behaviour Research and Therapy , 43 , 403–412. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2004.02.008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwarz N, & Skurnik IU (2003). Feeling and thinking: Implications for problem solving In Davidson JE & Sternberg RJ (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 263–290). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615771.010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Startup HM, & Davey GCL (2003). Inflated responsibility and the use of stop rules for catastrophic worrying . Behaviour Research and Therapy , 41 , 495–503. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7967(02)00245-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Startup HM, & Erickson TM (2006). The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ) In Davey GCL & Wells A (Eds.), Worry and its psychological disorders: Theory, assessment and treatment . (pp. 101–119). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. doi: 10.1002/9780470713143.ch7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stefanopoulou E, Hirsch CR, Hayes S, Adlam A, & Coker S. (2014). Are attentional control resources reduced by worry in generalized anxiety disorder? Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 123 , 330–335. doi: 10.1037/a0036343 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sugiura Y. (2007). Responsibility to continue thinking and worrying: Evidence of incremental validity . Behaviour Research and Therapy , 45 , 1619–1628. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2006.08.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sugiura Y. (2013). The dual effects of critical thinking disposition on worry . PLoS ONE , 8 , e79714. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079714 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Szabó M, & Lovibond PF (2002). The cognitive content of naturally occurring worry episodes . Cognitive Therapy and Research , 26 , 167–177. doi: 10.1023/A:1014565602111 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Szabó M, & Lovibond PF (2006). Worry episodes and perceived problem solving: A diary-based approach . Anxiety, Stress & Coping , 19 , 175–187. doi: 10.1080/10615800600643562 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tallis F, Eysenck M, & Mathews A. (1991). Elevated evidence requirements and worry . Personality and Individual Differences , 12 , 21–27. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(91)90128-X [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trezise K, & Reeve RA (2016). Worry and working memory influence each other iteratively over time . Cognition and Emotion , 30 , 353–368. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2014.1002755 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zetsche U, Bürkner P-C, & Schulze L. (2018). Shedding light on the association between repetitive negative thinking and deficits in cognitive control – A meta-analysis . Clinical Psychology Review , 63 , 56–65. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2018.06.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Australia (AUD $)
• Austria (EUR €)
• Belgium (EUR €)
• Canada (CAD $)
• Czechia (CZK Kč)
• Denmark (DKK kr.)
• Finland (EUR €)
• France (EUR €)
• Germany (EUR €)
• Hong Kong SAR (HKD $)
• Ireland (EUR €)
• Israel (ILS ₪)
• Italy (EUR €)
• Japan (JPY ¥)
• Malaysia (MYR RM)
• Netherlands (EUR €)
• New Zealand (NZD $)
• Norway (USD $)
• Poland (PLN zł)
• Portugal (EUR €)
• Singapore (SGD $)
• South Korea (KRW ₩)
• Spain (EUR €)
• Sweden (SEK kr)
• Switzerland (CHF CHF)
• United Arab Emirates (AED د.إ)
• United Kingdom (GBP £)
• United States (USD $)

Sign up and save

Sign up for our mailing list to receive discounts and exclusive offers.

Solve Problems Before They Happen: Proactive Strategies for Success

We all know that prevention is better than cure, and this is especially true when it comes to problem-solving. Proactive problem-solving is a crucial skill in both personal and professional life that can lead to long-term success. In this article, we will discuss the importance of proactive problem-solving and provide you with strategies to adopt a proactive approach to prevent problems before they even occur.

Understanding the Importance of Proactive Problem-Solving

The most successful individuals and organizations are those who take a proactive approach to problem-solving. Proactive problem-solving involves identifying potential problems before they occur and taking action to prevent them from becoming an issue. This approach minimizes the risk of facing unexpected challenges that can cause an array of consequences, including financial loss, missed opportunities, reputational damage, and emotional stress. With proactive problem-solving, you can avoid these downsides and ensure smooth operations, happier stakeholders, and greater chances for success.

One of the key benefits of proactive problem-solving is that it allows you to stay ahead of the competition. By identifying potential issues before they arise, you can take steps to address them and maintain a competitive edge. This can be especially important in industries that are constantly evolving, where being able to adapt quickly can make all the difference.

Another advantage of proactive problem-solving is that it can help you build stronger relationships with your stakeholders. By demonstrating that you are proactive and committed to addressing potential issues, you can build trust and confidence with your customers, employees, and partners. This can lead to increased loyalty, better collaboration, and a more positive reputation overall.

Identifying Potential Problems in Advance

To adopt a proactive problem-solving approach, you must first identify the potential problems that could occur. Conduct a systematic review of your personal or professional life and consider the future. You can also study your past experiences to recognize trends and recurring issues. This foresight will provide you with the knowledge to recognize potential problems and take action to prevent or mitigate them.

One effective way to identify potential problems is to seek feedback from others. Ask for input from colleagues, friends, or family members who have experience in the area you are concerned about. They may be able to provide valuable insights and perspectives that you had not considered before.

Another approach is to conduct research and gather information about similar situations or industries. This can help you anticipate potential challenges and prepare accordingly. By staying informed and up-to-date, you can stay ahead of potential problems and be better equipped to handle them if they do arise.

Analyzing the Root Causes of Problems

When you have identified potential problems, you must analyze their root causes to understand the underlying reason for their occurrence. This involves conducting a rigorous analysis of the problem, including researching and tracking data, conducting team discussions, and brainstorming sessions. This analysis will enable you to develop a comprehensive understanding of the problem, enabling you to develop effective solutions.

It is important to note that analyzing the root causes of problems is not a one-time event. As you implement solutions, it is important to monitor their effectiveness and track any new issues that may arise. This ongoing analysis will help you to identify any underlying issues that may be contributing to the problem, allowing you to make necessary adjustments and improvements to your solutions.

Implementing Preventative Measures to Avoid Future Problems

Once you have identified potential problems and analyzed their root causes, the next step is to implement preventative measures to avoid future issues. This can include adopting new policies and procedures, improving training and education programs, providing resources and tools to team members, and implementing new technologies. By implementing preventative measures, you can create a safer and more efficient environment for your personal or professional life.

One important aspect of implementing preventative measures is to regularly review and update them. As new technologies and best practices emerge, it is important to ensure that your preventative measures are still effective and relevant. This can involve conducting regular risk assessments and seeking feedback from team members and stakeholders.

Another key factor in implementing preventative measures is to foster a culture of safety and accountability. This involves encouraging team members to report potential issues and providing them with the support and resources they need to do so. It also involves holding individuals and teams accountable for following policies and procedures, and addressing any issues that arise in a timely and effective manner.

Creating a Culture of Proactivity in Your Organization

If you are a leader in an organization, it is essential to create a culture of proactivity in your team. Encourage your team members to adopt a proactive approach to problem-solving by rewarding innovation and taking calculated risks. Emphasize the importance of early detection, root cause analysis, and pragmatic preventative measures. Create a continuous learning culture that encourages individuals to seek feedback and improve their performance continually.

One way to foster a culture of proactivity is to provide your team members with the necessary resources and tools to succeed. This includes access to training programs, mentorship opportunities, and the latest technology. By investing in your team's development, you are demonstrating your commitment to their success and encouraging them to take ownership of their work.

Another critical aspect of creating a proactive culture is to lead by example. As a leader, you must model the behavior you want to see in your team. This means taking initiative, being accountable for your actions, and demonstrating a willingness to learn and grow. By setting the tone for proactivity, you can inspire your team to follow suit and create a culture of continuous improvement.

Teaching Others to Think Proactively

You can also help others by teaching them to think proactively. Share your personal experiences with proactive problem-solving and how it has benefited you in your life. Encourage them to identify potential problems and analyze their root causes. Provide them with the tools and resources they need to implement preventative measures that can prevent problems from occurring in the first place.

Additionally, it is important to emphasize the importance of taking action and not just identifying potential problems. Encourage others to develop a plan of action and follow through with it. Help them to prioritize tasks and allocate resources effectively. By teaching others to think proactively and take action, you can empower them to become more effective problem-solvers and achieve their goals more efficiently.

Building Resilience to Handle Unexpected Challenges

Even with proactive problem-solving strategies in place, you may still face unexpected challenges. Therefore, it is essential to build resilience to handle these situations effectively. Resilience is about developing mental and emotional strength to overcome unexpected challenges and bounce back from setbacks. This involves developing positive coping mechanisms, maintaining a healthy work-life balance, and having a support network in place.

One way to build resilience is to practice mindfulness and meditation. These practices can help you stay present in the moment and manage stress and anxiety. Additionally, regular exercise and a healthy diet can also contribute to building resilience by improving physical and mental health.

It is also important to remember that building resilience is an ongoing process. It requires consistent effort and a willingness to learn and grow from challenges. By developing resilience, you can not only handle unexpected challenges but also thrive in the face of adversity.

Communicating Effectively to Prevent Misunderstandings

Misunderstandings and communication problems can also cause significant issues in personal and professional life. Therefore, it is essential to communicate effectively to prevent these issues. This involves actively listening, clarifying instructions and expectations, expressing yourself clearly and respectfully, and providing feedback effectively. Effective communication can help prevent misunderstandings from escalating into more serious problems.

One important aspect of effective communication is being aware of cultural differences. Different cultures may have different communication styles and expectations, and being aware of these differences can help prevent misunderstandings. For example, in some cultures, direct communication may be preferred, while in others, indirect communication may be more common.

In addition, technology has changed the way we communicate, and it is important to be mindful of how we use it. While technology can make communication more efficient, it can also lead to misunderstandings if not used appropriately. It is important to consider the context and audience when choosing the appropriate communication method, whether it be email, text, or face-to-face communication.

Developing a Problem-Solving Mindset for Long-Term Success

Finally, one of the most important strategies for proactive problem-solving is cultivating a problem-solving mindset. This mindset involves approaching problems with a positive attitude and a structured problem-solving approach. It involves being open-minded and embracing the challenge, rather than being overwhelmed by the problem. With a problem-solving mindset, you can identify potential problems, analyze their root causes, and implement effective solutions that lead to success.

One way to cultivate a problem-solving mindset is to practice mindfulness and meditation. These practices can help you develop a sense of calm and clarity, which can be useful when facing difficult problems. Additionally, practicing mindfulness can help you become more aware of your own thought patterns and biases, which can help you approach problems with a more open and objective mindset.

Another important aspect of developing a problem-solving mindset is to embrace failure as a learning opportunity. Rather than being discouraged by setbacks, view them as opportunities to learn and grow. Analyze what went wrong, identify areas for improvement, and use that knowledge to approach future problems with greater confidence and effectiveness.

Using Data and Analytics to Anticipate Problems

Data and analytics are valuable tools that can help you anticipate problems in advance. By analyzing historical data and identifying trends, you can proactively predict potential problems and take action to prevent them from occurring. This approach enables you to stay ahead of the curve and implement preventative measures before problems arise.

One of the key benefits of using data and analytics to anticipate problems is that it allows you to optimize your resources. By identifying potential issues before they occur, you can allocate your resources more efficiently and effectively. This can help you save time, money, and other valuable resources.

Another advantage of using data and analytics is that it can help you improve your decision-making process. By analyzing data and identifying patterns, you can make more informed decisions that are based on facts and evidence. This can help you avoid making decisions based on assumptions or guesswork, which can lead to costly mistakes.

Incorporating Technology for Proactive Problem-Solving Solutions

Incorporating technology into your proactive problem-solving can provide you with innovative and effective solutions. You can use various software programs to help you detect problems early, analyze root causes, and implement preventative measures. Using technology allows you to automate tasks, save time, and reduce the risk of human error.

One of the most significant benefits of incorporating technology into your proactive problem-solving is the ability to collect and analyze data. With the help of data analytics tools, you can gather and analyze large amounts of data to identify patterns and trends that may be contributing to the problem. This information can help you make informed decisions and implement effective solutions.

Another advantage of using technology for proactive problem-solving is the ability to collaborate with team members and stakeholders. With the help of collaboration tools, you can share information, ideas, and solutions with others in real-time. This can help you gain valuable insights and perspectives that you may not have considered otherwise.

The Benefits of Proactive Problem-Solving in Personal Life and Work

Proactive problem-solving provides numerous benefits, including increased efficiency, higher productivity, better quality of life, and reduced stress. When you adopt a proactive problem-solving approach, you can avoid unnecessary problems, minimize risks, and make better-informed decisions. In personal life, proactive problem-solving can lead to better relationships, improved health, and overall happiness. In the workplace, proactive problem-solving can lead to increased profitability, higher customer satisfaction, and improved team morale.

Moreover, proactive problem-solving can also enhance your problem-solving skills and creativity. By taking a proactive approach, you are forced to think outside the box and come up with innovative solutions to problems. This can lead to personal and professional growth, as well as increased confidence in your abilities. Additionally, proactive problem-solving can help you develop a sense of control over your life and work, as you are actively taking steps to prevent and solve problems before they arise. Overall, adopting a proactive problem-solving approach can have a significant positive impact on both your personal and professional life.

Best Practices for Successful Proactive Problem-Solving

Successful proactive problem-solving involves adopting best practices that have been proven to be effective. These include involving team members in problem-solving, encouraging innovative solutions, continuously learning, maintaining a positive attitude, and being flexible to change. Incorporating these best practices into your proactive problem-solving strategies can help you achieve success.

Another important best practice for successful proactive problem-solving is to establish clear communication channels. This means ensuring that everyone involved in the problem-solving process is aware of the issue at hand, the goals and objectives, and the steps being taken to address the problem. Clear communication can help to avoid misunderstandings and ensure that everyone is working towards the same goal.

It is also important to regularly evaluate and assess your proactive problem-solving strategies. This can help you identify areas for improvement and make necessary adjustments to your approach. By regularly reviewing your strategies, you can ensure that you are staying up-to-date with the latest best practices and techniques, and that you are continuously improving your problem-solving skills.

Measuring the Success of Your Proactive Strategies

Finally, it is essential to measure the success of your proactive problem-solving strategies. You can gather feedback from team members, study data and metrics, and track progress to evaluate the effectiveness of your approach. This information can then be used to fine-tune your strategies, identify areas for improvement, and ultimately achieve even greater success.

In conclusion, adopting a proactive problem-solving approach in your personal and professional life is a critical component of success. With the strategies discussed in this article, you can identify potential problems, analyze their root causes, and implement effective preventative measures to avoid them. By doing so, you can enjoy the benefits of a safer, more efficient, and happier life.

One important aspect of measuring the success of your proactive strategies is to set clear goals and objectives. This will help you to determine whether your strategies are achieving the desired outcomes. For example, if your goal is to reduce the number of customer complaints, you can track the number of complaints before and after implementing your proactive measures. By setting measurable goals, you can also motivate your team and celebrate successes along the way.

Next Article >

< previous article.

© Brave in Bloom, 2023

Other Journal Entries

Our Best Skincare Products

Our Best Aging Prevention Products

• Hire Full Project Team
• Hire Fullstack Engineer Team
• Hire Quality Assurance Team
• Mobile App Development
• Web App Development

• Blockchain development
• E-commerce development
• Booking Platform
• Marketplace

• Web Backend Development
• Web frontend development
• Blockchain Software Development

• Partnership
• Free Proposal
• Offshore News

PROACTIVE PROBLEM SOLVING: QUICKLY, CREATIVELY, AND PERMANENTLY SUPPORT

Main Contents:

Today’s technology companies face the difficulties of the digital era, including rising user expectations, technological changes, and severe rivalry. Hence, managers and IT professionals frequently push technology solutions to proactive problem-solving .

However, many companies still lack an appropriate and rigorous strategy for developing issues, identifying core causes, implementing necessary remedial measures, assessing the consequences, and ultimately creating a better knowledge of the task that enhances people’s day-to-day employment practices. This is where proactive problem management methods come in.

To prevent issues from happening in the first place, you must have a plan for every possible scenario. This blog post will explore the importance of proactive problem-solving and how to do it quickly, creatively, and permanently.

What is proactive problem management?

What is proactive problem-solving?

It is a problem-solving approach that focuses on identifying solutions before they occur by employing proactive problem solving techniques.

The key is not necessarily the reaction but how you react to it. Preventing issues is what proactive problem-solving entails. The emphasis is on resolving the root source of the problem rather than its consequences.

A proactive development team is a team of developers who don’t wait for solutions; they are proactive about discovering problems to solve. This involves ensuring that all team members are trained in dealing with any issue that may arise and having a backup plan in place in case something goes wrong.

When teams are proactive, they solve problems preemptively for two main reasons: firstly, so that problems don’t affect their team’s productivity or output, and secondly, their organization can gain a competitive advantage and satisfy clients.

How to build a proactive problem-solving team

Problem-solving teams are created to work together permanently

Identify root causes

Once the fundamental cause is identified, a team can remediate the defect at its source and prevent it from future occurrences.

For example in proactive problem management , developers can review the design and requirements documentation to make corrections if the defect results from a design error. If a testing mistake causes the defect, developers can update the test cases and metrics.

Hence, a proactive problem-solving team is a team that can identify the root causes.

Types of defect

[su_spoiler title=”Errors, omissions, or gaps in the original requirements.” style=”fancy”]These flaws can arise when a need is missed or forgotten when it is written incorrectly, when stakeholders are not adequately understood, or when developers are misinterpreted.[/su_spoiler]

[su_spoiler title=”Errors in the design or architecture.” style=”fancy”]These issues arise when software designers build an inefficient software algorithm or process, or when that algorithm or process fails to provide results with the requisite accuracy.[/su_spoiler]

[su_spoiler title=”Errors in the coding or implementation.” style=”fancy”]These defects include traditional bugs caused by everything from missing brackets to ungraceful error handling.[/su_spoiler]

[su_spoiler title=”Errors in test planning or test execution.” style=”fancy”]These defects are the result of inadequately tested features and functions.[/su_spoiler]

[su_spoiler title=”Errors in deployment.” style=”fancy”]An example of one of these problems is when a team allocates insufficient VM resources.[/su_spoiler]

[su_spoiler title=”Errors in the process or policies a team uses to govern the development cycle.” style=”fancy”]For example, this defect crop up when a team obtains signoffs or approvals without good design, coding, or testing review.[/su_spoiler]

How to implement proactive problem management process

Approaches to root cause analysis

The Fishbone diagram is one of the most popular techniques.

A fishbone analysis, also known as an Ishikawa diagram or a cause-and-effect diagram, is intended to assist analysts in visualizing a root cause by categorizing potential reasons into categories that branch out from the initial issue. The resultant graphic resembles a fish skeleton, thus the name.

The underlying problem or issue is usually written at the “head” of the fish. The “bones” are categories of possible causes. Then we can find out the principal reasons under each group; if necessary, the diagram might include secondary and tertiary factors.

Proactive approach to problem solving

Learn more: When do you need to hire a professional software QA team?

Proactively determine solutions

Once you’ve identified the issue, it’s time to devise a solution. It is sometimes possible to become so engrossed in identifying issues that solution definition becomes secondary.

When delivering a fix for the identified problem, we must consider two factors: resolving the issue and preventing it from recurring in the future. We’ve all seen “hotfixes” that last forever and cause technical debt.

Furthermore, enablement needs to propose solutions among team members first to ensure they continue to understand the context of the issue through the eyes of the stakeholders and connect the solution to stakeholders’ pain points. Then continuing to communicate with stakeholders proactively early and during the implementation will assist in creating further trust and enthusiasm in solutions.

Empower open communication and ongoing feedback

Proactive problem-solving begins with getting everyone on the same page about an overall plan for how you’re going tackle the project. This includes setting specific goals and objectives. Hence, communication is key here—be sure that everyone knows their role and what they are expected to do throughout the entire project life cycle.

The evolution of management is an ongoing process of open communication and feedback. Team members will receive the support needed for any improvements or changes in direction from management if necessary.

• Feedback from all members of the development group should be given regularly, even if it’s negative or positive. Developing a clear feedback process with the team puts everyone on the same playing field for future progress.
• Encourage open communication among peers by making space for discussion in meetings. The team may focus on what went right and wrong in a productive and non-occupational way through meetings.
• Encourage members of the team to ask questions. Never disregard a question or make someone feel insufficient for posing one. Questions contribute to critical explanations, discoveries, and, in many cases, process improvements that the team would not have identified otherwise.

Read more: Proactive communication – successful key of all offshore development team

Characteristics of InApps’ proactive problem-solving team

We win our client’s trust with high skills, market knowledge, well-communication, and 24/7 dedicated support.

Proactive problem solver

Flexible approach

We provide each of our clients with a unique custom solution. We always have meetings to deeply understand our client’s business models and requirements or the pain points before making the proposals.

With InApps, clients can participate in projects by prioritizing, defining functions, developing iteration plans and reviews, and developing software versions that incorporate new features.

Proactive support

We handle issues and fix urgent to minimize complaints.

Our team uses platforms like Slack for internal conversations between meetings. When we require the client’s feedback, we use technologies like Basecamp to facilitate communication proactively.

This is also useful if the client needs to bring anything to our notice for discussion. We can communicate, ensure information is distributed, and plan spontaneous conversations to walk through more complex issues.

High troubleshooting skills

Need to fix bugs to launch your web/app as soon as possible? We offer dedicated teams with proactive troubleshooting skills to quickly fix all your urgent issues.

Trusted and high technical skills are the factors that made InApps build a successful high-performing offshore team .

Rapid response & quickly fix all urgent issues

We have a unique program to train talents to become a SWAT team that works effectively with clients. Our offshore team quickly solves the problems from the root causes and responds to the client within 24 hours. 

Read more: InApps’ Automation Management: Proactive Solution for Software Development

Let’s create the next big thing together!

Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.

Let’s talk

Recommended

Managing Risks of Outsourcing Software Development

Managing Software Development Teams Like a Pro

WHEN DO YOU NEED TO HIRE QA TEAM?

Why Outsourcing Quality Assurance And How To Do It Right

Top 5 Software Testing Outsourcing Companies For SMEs

How to manage cross-cultural communication barriers with offshore teams

Hire AI Developers: Skills, Costs, and Where to Find Them

Hire Your Offshore Ecommerce Development Team

How and Where To Hire Laravel Developers

How To Hire Offshore Developers (Detailed Checklist Provided)

Get a custom proposal.

Please fill in your information and your need to get a suitable solution .

Business Email Your name Phone number How can we help?

Retail & E-commerce Food Ordering App Blockchain AI Healthcare Hospitality Travel & Tourism Real Estate Education & E-Learning Online Flatform Others

20K to 50K 50K to 100K More than 100K Need a Consultant

Upload your specs...

I accept the privacy policy Send me an NDA Call me ASAP

You need to enter your email to download

Email Your name Phone

I accept the privacy policy

[cf7sr-simple-recaptcha]

9 Practical Tips to Choose a Mobile App Development Company for 2023

Picture this: You finally decide to build a mobile application, as a solution to drive your business growth. However, you then have to choose the right mobile…

If you’re new to outsourcing software, it’s natural to be concerned that remote collaboration might end up being costly and time-consuming. These worries are especially understandable if…

Managing software development teams is crucial for delivering high-quality products on time, enhancing team communication, and minimizing conflicts. Effective team management in software engineering ensures organization and…

For mobile and web app development, making sure everything works perfectly is super important. Even when everything seems okay on the surface, there might be hidden problems…

Ho Chi Minh (Headquarter)

Singapore Branch

DealerPoint: May 21-23, 2024 Conference & Expo: October 8-10, 2024

Proactive Problem Solving in Business: Learning from Aftermath

This is going to start as grim, but it gets better. Aftermath, (which is the name of an actual ServiceMaster company), pioneered the field of performing crime scene services and trauma clean up. They coined this terminology, Aftermath, and developed a five-step remediation process that, surprisingly, holds valuable insights for the business world.

Their services include, and I quote, “unintended death remediation,” which is a term I had not heard before. I looked it up: it’s a death in which the body is not found for days, weeks, or even months. Aftermath services includes homicide and suicide cleanup, hoarding cleanup, and specialty biohazard services, like tear gas cleanup. Before 30 days ago, I had no knowledge of any of this.

They site a five-step “Aftermath Remediation Process,” which includes the assessment, the protocol to control the affected area, the removal, deodorizing, and verification to ensure the cleanliness.

It’s awful this kind of service exists, right?

Now let’s bring it back to our business, the automobile business.

Preventative Measures

When we don’t handle the problems in front of us, bad things happen. You can stop problems from developing though. These are also called “preventative measures.” What procedures can you put in place or what policies can you implement in order to stop problems before they happen?

If you hear or see a problem in the making, bring it to someone’s attention in your chain of command. If you don’t know who that person is, then please ask.

It’s much less expensive to solve a problem “now,” versus assuming someone else will get around to it or fix it. They won’t. Own it and fix it. Problems are like rotten fish; they smell worse and worse each day.

Mitigative measures are defined as those techniques which you use to conclude a problem after it has festered. It’s well known to be more expensive than fixing the issue early upon discovery.

The more time you spend personally living and acting with a preventative problem paradigm, the less time will you be required to be reactive and, dragged into the time sucking muck of mitigative measures. You may have heard an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and it’s true.

5-Step Process

If we look at Aftermath’s five-step process and use it as a guide, it can teach us a lot about our business:

1) Assess the problem:  Before diving into solutions, it’s important to thoroughly understand the issue at hand.

2) Control the affected areas of the business: “ Secure” or stop the problem before it becomes larger or seeps further.

3) Remove the affected area:   Take action, solving the problem.

4) Deodorize the problem:  Make sure there are no lingering effects. Here, make sure you leave the situation better than when you found it. Perhaps you should define a new company policy to ensure this issue doesn’t arise again?

5)  Verify:  Revisit the “crime scene” later to verify the issue has been squelched and will not pop-up again.

The analogy here is dark and gruesome. Why use such negativity?

Businesses fail due to a lack of discipline, governance, and compliance with company policies and government rules and regulations. Don’t create hazards by ignoring the rules, laws, and regulations.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) routinely sends out press releases when they impose fines against businesses. At the bottom of each one, this language is prominent: “NOTE: The Commission files a compliant when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest.”

So, these regulators, can take action if they believe your company is “about to violate the law.” Translated, this means your company is guilty, as long as the FTC believes your company is doing something wrong. Then you would have to prove “you are innocent.”

There are two main reasons to solve problems upon discovery:

• Cost Effectiveness:   Addressing problems promptly is less expensive than letting them fester and grow.
• Risk Mitigation : It will help keep your company clear of bigger problems and issues down the road.

Let’s concentrate on preventing concerns instead of trying to fix issues as they arise. This is the basis of a robust governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) process.

Our business is the people business, so most problems begin with unhappy customers. Left unchecked and unmonitored, those unsatisfied customers turn into legal problems or problems where regulators get involved. Then it becomes ugly and expensive, as they inevitably turn into aftermath problems.

Owning and running a dealership can feel like trying to tuck an octopus in bed and the tentacles keep flopping out.  Tom Kline  appreciates and understands this as, for 30 years, he was a dealership franchise owner. Kline specializes in solving dealership problems through risk mitigation remedies, compliance, and dispute resolution (i.e. tucking in the tentacles). He is the Lead Consultant & Founder of  Better Vantage Point , Tuck The Octopus (a new, early efforts GRC package), and AlwaysDoBetter.com and has worked with both publicly-held and private dealerships. Kline routinely speaks at national conferences, workshops, 20 groups, presents webinars about risk transferences and risk mitigation topics & techniques, and routinely provides expert witness testimony to defend dealerships. Kline also writes for seven (7) publications and has multiple trade group endorsements. Thanks for seeing things from a Better Vantage Point, where “We Get You Out of Trouble…and Keep You Out of Trouble.”

Dealer Magazine: How to be Profitable During the Collapse of Western Civilization

Tire Industry Drives Digital ID Standards

Dealers Bracing for Disruption at Port of Baltimore

Dealer Magazine: This is Why Customers Defect to Independent Garages…

CDK Bridges Longstanding Gap Between OEM and Dealer Shopping Experiences With Automotive Commerce Collab

Honda Sweeps KBB’s Consumer Choice Awards

Holman to Host Cutting-Edge Auto Brands Hiring Event in Fort Lauderdale April 4

Culture Development

Workplace problem-solving examples: real scenarios, practical solutions.

• March 11, 2024

In today’s fast-paced and ever-changing work environment, problems are inevitable. From conflicts among employees to high levels of stress, workplace problems can significantly impact productivity and overall well-being. However, by developing the art of problem-solving and implementing practical solutions, organizations can effectively tackle these challenges and foster a positive work culture. In this article, we will delve into various workplace problem scenarios and explore strategies for resolution. By understanding common workplace problems and acquiring essential problem-solving skills, individuals and organizations can navigate these challenges with confidence and success.

Understanding Workplace Problems

Before we can effectively solve workplace problems , it is essential to gain a clear understanding of the issues at hand. Identifying common workplace problems is the first step toward finding practical solutions. By recognizing these challenges, organizations can develop targeted strategies and initiatives to address them.

Identifying Common Workplace Problems

One of the most common workplace problems is conflict. Whether it stems from differences in opinions, miscommunication, or personality clashes, conflict can disrupt collaboration and hinder productivity. It is important to note that conflict is a natural part of any workplace, as individuals with different backgrounds and perspectives come together to work towards a common goal. However, when conflict is not managed effectively, it can escalate and create a toxic work environment.

In addition to conflict, workplace stress and burnout pose significant challenges. High workloads, tight deadlines, and a lack of work-life balance can all contribute to employee stress and dissatisfaction. When employees are overwhelmed and exhausted, their performance and overall well-being are compromised. This not only affects the individuals directly, but it also has a ripple effect on the entire organization.

Another common workplace problem is poor communication. Ineffective communication can lead to misunderstandings, delays, and errors. It can also create a sense of confusion and frustration among employees. Clear and open communication is vital for successful collaboration and the smooth functioning of any organization.

The Impact of Workplace Problems on Productivity

Workplace problems can have a detrimental effect on productivity levels. When conflicts are left unresolved, they can create a tense work environment, leading to decreased employee motivation and engagement. The negative energy generated by unresolved conflicts can spread throughout the organization, affecting team dynamics and overall performance.

Similarly, high levels of stress and burnout can result in decreased productivity, as individuals may struggle to focus and perform optimally. When employees are constantly under pressure and overwhelmed, their ability to think creatively and problem-solve diminishes. This can lead to a decline in the quality of work produced and an increase in errors and inefficiencies.

Poor communication also hampers productivity. When information is not effectively shared or understood, it can lead to misunderstandings, delays, and rework. This not only wastes time and resources but also creates frustration and demotivation among employees.

Furthermore, workplace problems can negatively impact employee morale and job satisfaction. When individuals are constantly dealing with conflicts, stress, and poor communication, their overall job satisfaction and engagement suffer. This can result in higher turnover rates, as employees seek a healthier and more supportive work environment.

In conclusion, workplace problems such as conflict, stress, burnout, and poor communication can significantly hinder productivity and employee well-being. Organizations must address these issues promptly and proactively to create a positive and productive work atmosphere. By fostering open communication, providing support for stress management, and promoting conflict resolution strategies, organizations can create a work environment that encourages collaboration, innovation, and employee satisfaction.

The Art of Problem Solving in the Workplace

Now that we have a clear understanding of workplace problems, let’s explore the essential skills necessary for effective problem-solving in the workplace. By developing these skills and adopting a proactive approach, individuals can tackle problems head-on and find practical solutions.

Problem-solving in the workplace is a complex and multifaceted skill that requires a combination of analytical thinking, creativity, and effective communication. It goes beyond simply identifying problems and extends to finding innovative solutions that address the root causes.

Essential Problem-Solving Skills for the Workplace

To effectively solve workplace problems, individuals should possess a range of skills. These include strong analytical and critical thinking abilities, excellent communication and interpersonal skills, the ability to collaborate and work well in a team, and the capacity to adapt to change. By honing these skills, individuals can approach workplace problems with confidence and creativity.

Analytical and critical thinking skills are essential for problem-solving in the workplace. They involve the ability to gather and analyze relevant information, identify patterns and trends, and make logical connections. These skills enable individuals to break down complex problems into manageable components and develop effective strategies to solve them.

Effective communication and interpersonal skills are also crucial for problem-solving in the workplace. These skills enable individuals to clearly articulate their thoughts and ideas, actively listen to others, and collaborate effectively with colleagues. By fostering open and honest communication channels, individuals can better understand the root causes of problems and work towards finding practical solutions.

Collaboration and teamwork are essential for problem-solving in the workplace. By working together, individuals can leverage their diverse skills, knowledge, and perspectives to generate innovative solutions. Collaboration fosters a supportive and inclusive environment where everyone’s ideas are valued, leading to more effective problem-solving outcomes.

The ability to adapt to change is another important skill for problem-solving in the workplace. In today’s fast-paced and dynamic work environment, problems often arise due to changes in technology, processes, or market conditions. Individuals who can embrace change and adapt quickly are better equipped to find solutions that address the evolving needs of the organization.

The Role of Communication in Problem Solving

Communication is a key component of effective problem-solving in the workplace. By fostering open and honest communication channels, individuals can better understand the root causes of problems and work towards finding practical solutions. Active listening, clear and concise articulation of thoughts and ideas, and the ability to empathize are all valuable communication skills that facilitate problem-solving.

Active listening involves fully engaging with the speaker, paying attention to both verbal and non-verbal cues, and seeking clarification when necessary. By actively listening, individuals can gain a deeper understanding of the problem at hand and the perspectives of others involved. This understanding is crucial for developing comprehensive and effective solutions.

Clear and concise articulation of thoughts and ideas is essential for effective problem-solving communication. By expressing oneself clearly, individuals can ensure that their ideas are understood by others. This clarity helps to avoid misunderstandings and promotes effective collaboration.

Empathy is a valuable communication skill that plays a significant role in problem-solving. By putting oneself in the shoes of others and understanding their emotions and perspectives, individuals can build trust and rapport. This empathetic connection fosters a supportive and collaborative environment where everyone feels valued and motivated to contribute to finding solutions.

In conclusion, problem-solving in the workplace requires a combination of essential skills such as analytical thinking, effective communication, collaboration, and adaptability. By honing these skills and fostering open communication channels, individuals can approach workplace problems with confidence and creativity, leading to practical and innovative solutions.

Real Scenarios of Workplace Problems

Now, let’s explore some real scenarios of workplace problems and delve into strategies for resolution. By examining these practical examples, individuals can develop a deeper understanding of how to approach and solve workplace problems.

Conflict Resolution in the Workplace

Imagine a scenario where two team members have conflicting ideas on how to approach a project. The disagreement becomes heated, leading to a tense work environment. To resolve this conflict, it is crucial to encourage open dialogue between the team members. Facilitating a calm and respectful conversation can help uncover underlying concerns and find common ground. Collaboration and compromise are key in reaching a resolution that satisfies all parties involved.

In this particular scenario, let’s dive deeper into the dynamics between the team members. One team member, let’s call her Sarah, strongly believes that a more conservative and traditional approach is necessary for the project’s success. On the other hand, her colleague, John, advocates for a more innovative and out-of-the-box strategy. The clash between their perspectives arises from their different backgrounds and experiences.

As the conflict escalates, it is essential for a neutral party, such as a team leader or a mediator, to step in and facilitate the conversation. This person should create a safe space for both Sarah and John to express their ideas and concerns without fear of judgment or retribution. By actively listening to each other, they can gain a better understanding of the underlying motivations behind their respective approaches.

During the conversation, it may become apparent that Sarah’s conservative approach stems from a fear of taking risks and a desire for stability. On the other hand, John’s innovative mindset is driven by a passion for pushing boundaries and finding creative solutions. Recognizing these underlying motivations can help foster empathy and create a foundation for collaboration.

As the dialogue progresses, Sarah and John can begin to identify areas of overlap and potential compromise. They may realize that while Sarah’s conservative approach provides stability, John’s innovative ideas can inject fresh perspectives into the project. By combining their strengths and finding a middle ground, they can develop a hybrid strategy that incorporates both stability and innovation.

Ultimately, conflict resolution in the workplace requires effective communication, active listening, empathy, and a willingness to find common ground. By addressing conflicts head-on and fostering a collaborative environment, teams can overcome challenges and achieve their goals.

Dealing with Workplace Stress and Burnout

Workplace stress and burnout can be debilitating for individuals and organizations alike. In this scenario, an employee is consistently overwhelmed by their workload and experiencing signs of burnout. To address this issue, organizations should promote a healthy work-life balance and provide resources to manage stress effectively. Encouraging employees to take breaks, providing access to mental health support, and fostering a supportive work culture are all practical solutions to alleviate workplace stress.

In this particular scenario, let’s imagine that the employee facing stress and burnout is named Alex. Alex has been working long hours, often sacrificing personal time and rest to meet tight deadlines and demanding expectations. As a result, Alex is experiencing physical and mental exhaustion, reduced productivity, and a sense of detachment from work.

Recognizing the signs of burnout, Alex’s organization takes proactive measures to address the issue. They understand that employee well-being is crucial for maintaining a healthy and productive workforce. To promote a healthy work-life balance, the organization encourages employees to take regular breaks and prioritize self-care. They emphasize the importance of disconnecting from work during non-working hours and encourage employees to engage in activities that promote relaxation and rejuvenation.

Additionally, the organization provides access to mental health support services, such as counseling or therapy sessions. They recognize that stress and burnout can have a significant impact on an individual’s mental well-being and offer resources to help employees manage their stress effectively. By destigmatizing mental health and providing confidential support, the organization creates an environment where employees feel comfortable seeking help when needed.

Furthermore, the organization fosters a supportive work culture by promoting open communication and empathy. They encourage managers and colleagues to check in with each other regularly, offering support and understanding. Team members are encouraged to collaborate and share the workload, ensuring that no one person is overwhelmed with excessive responsibilities.

By implementing these strategies, Alex’s organization aims to alleviate workplace stress and prevent burnout. They understand that a healthy and balanced workforce is more likely to be engaged, productive, and satisfied. Through a combination of promoting work-life balance, providing mental health support, and fostering a supportive work culture, organizations can effectively address workplace stress and create an environment conducive to employee well-being.

Practical Solutions to Workplace Problems

Now that we have explored real scenarios, let’s discuss practical solutions that organizations can implement to address workplace problems. By adopting proactive strategies and establishing effective policies, organizations can create a positive work environment conducive to problem-solving and productivity.

Implementing Effective Policies for Problem Resolution

Organizations should have clear and well-defined policies in place to address workplace problems. These policies should outline procedures for conflict resolution, channels for reporting problems, and accountability measures. By ensuring that employees are aware of these policies and have easy access to them, organizations can facilitate problem-solving and prevent issues from escalating.

Promoting a Positive Workplace Culture

A positive workplace culture is vital for problem-solving. By fostering an environment of respect, collaboration, and open communication, organizations can create a space where individuals feel empowered to address and solve problems. Encouraging teamwork, recognizing and appreciating employees’ contributions, and promoting a healthy work-life balance are all ways to cultivate a positive workplace culture.

The Role of Leadership in Problem Solving

Leadership plays a crucial role in facilitating effective problem-solving within organizations. Different leadership styles can impact how problems are approached and resolved.

Leadership Styles and Their Impact on Problem-Solving

Leaders who adopt an autocratic leadership style may make decisions independently, potentially leaving their team members feeling excluded and undervalued. On the other hand, leaders who adopt a democratic leadership style involve their team members in the problem-solving process, fostering a sense of ownership and empowerment. By encouraging employee participation, organizations can leverage the diverse perspectives and expertise of their workforce to find innovative solutions to workplace problems.

Encouraging Employee Participation in Problem Solving

To harness the collective problem-solving abilities of an organization, it is crucial to encourage employee participation. Leaders can create opportunities for employees to contribute their ideas and perspectives through brainstorming sessions, team meetings, and collaborative projects. By valuing employee input and involving them in decision-making processes, organizations can foster a culture of inclusivity and drive innovative problem-solving efforts.

In today’s dynamic work environment, workplace problems are unavoidable. However, by understanding common workplace problems, developing essential problem-solving skills, and implementing practical solutions, individuals and organizations can navigate these challenges effectively. By fostering a positive work culture, implementing effective policies, and encouraging employee participation, organizations can create an environment conducive to problem-solving and productivity. With proactive problem-solving strategies in place, organizations can thrive and overcome obstacles, ensuring long-term success and growth.

Related Stories

• April 1, 2024

Company Blog: Engaging Corporate Insights

What is your employee value proposition, beyond backgrounds: embracing diversity, what can we help you find.

Lets Collaborate

Proactive Problem Solving

As leaders, problem-solving is a crucial skill that we need to navigate the various obstacles that we encounter while striving to achieve better outcomes, efficiency, and optimal resource utilization. 

In one of my previous blog posts titled  “Working Around Unsolved Problems” , we explored this topic in detail and discussed ways to tackle such persistent issues.

However, in a world full of unpredictability and complexity, wouldn’t it be great if we could prevent problems from happening in the first place? By taking a proactive approach to problem-solving, we can make this possible. 

This blog post will delve deeper into the concept of proactive problem-solving, its benefits, and how to make the most of its potential.

The skill of solving problems proactively is highly valuable for successful leaders and organizations. Proactive problem-solving empowers us to anticipate challenges, develop strategic solutions, and achieve more favourable outcomes. 

In simple terms, proactive problem-solving is the act of foreseeing potential challenges before they arise and taking appropriate measures to minimize their impact. By adopting a proactive approach, we can stay ahead of the curve and make well-informed decisions that help us avoid adversity.

Strategies for Proactive Problem Solving

The first step towards proactive problem-solving is to identify potential challenges that may arise in the future. It is important to deeply analyse past performance trends to identify potential issues. Besides, examining the business environment and external factors that may impact us is equally crucial.

• Gather Information

When we have identified a potential issue, our first step should be to gather as much information about it as possible. There are various tools, such as the 5-Whys or Fish Bone Diagram, that can help determine the root cause of the issue. Once we have identified the root cause, we can then analyse it in conjunction with precedents and industry best practices to create a strategy to mitigate the issue.

• Plan and Prioritise

We must devise an action plan in line with our business strategy to mitigate the issue. Actions must be prioritised to have maximum impact while keeping the adverse effects at bay.

• Act & Implement

It is important to take timely action when solving a problem. Effective implementation requires the involvement of all relevant stakeholders and the delegation of tasks. Collaborative problem-solving can lead to more robust solutions by increasing the pool of insights and expertise.

• Document Learnings

After implementing proactive solutions, we must review the outcomes, document everything, and learn from the experience. We must also assess what worked well and what could be improved for future proactive problem-solving endeavours.

If you’re proactive, you don’t have to wait for circumstances or other people to create perspective expanding experiences. You can consciously create your own. Stephen Covey

Benefits of Proactive Problem Solving

• Effective Decisions Making
• Reduced Adverse Impact
• Optimum Resource Utilisation
• Promoting Innovation Across the Organisation
• Stress Reduction and People and Resources
• Enhanced Trust and Credibility

Possible Challenges to Problem Solving

• Nothing Can Go Wrong

When everything is going according to plan, we tend to become complacent. We start to believe that nothing can go wrong and become overconfident in our abilities. This mindset can greatly affect our ability to anticipate future challenges and at times expedite their arrival. Doing exercises such as  “The Six Thinking Hats”  periodically can help us overcome this.

• Resistance to Change

Implementing minor or major changes in processes and procedures is often a crucial step in solving problems. However, it is natural to expect challenges when implementing such changes. One way to overcome these challenges is by showing the big picture to the team and leading by example.

• Fear of Unknown

Anticipating what might happen in the future can be challenging, particularly when it comes to identifying potential problems. Therefore, it is important to have all the necessary data and information handy before embarking on such endeavours. If any negative findings are discovered, they should not be viewed as a disaster but rather as an opportunity to improve our value proposition.

Proactive problem-solving is a powerful approach that enables leaders and organizations to anticipate future challenges, strategize solutions, and move towards success and growth. This approach offers numerous benefits such as reducing adverse impacts, enhancing decision-making, optimizing resource utilization, fostering innovation, and improving stress management.

It is an indispensable skill in today’s ever-evolving world. We must embrace the power of anticipation and embark on the journey of proactive problem-solving. By doing so, we can transform upcoming challenges into stepping stones towards a brighter future.

I am sure you found this article interesting and useful.

Please keep following my blog to get updates and new posts.

PS: ChatGPT has been used to create a few parts of this blog post.

Type your email…

Share this:

Published by arvind patel.

Thinker | Implementer | Mentor | Traveller View more posts

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Proactive Problem Solving and Creating Non-Events

By Christoph Goldenstern , Kepner-Tregoe

• Problem Management Start reducing cost and improving IT stability with better problem management. Learn more

Proactive problem solving is all about identifying problems and resolving them before the impacts are felt by the business.  What is the impact of an event that never occurs?  There isn’t one.  While not all problems can be avoided entirely, there are often early warning signs that indicate that a problem is developing.  These ‘smoke signals’ are only of value to you if you know what to look for and can take preemptive action to avoid a firestorm.

Problem management is a process and the key to proactive problem solving is understanding each step in the process – what the signals are telling you and what you need to do with the information.

Monitoring and Instrumentation

The first step in the problem management lifecycle is all about keeping a lookout for signs of trouble. This requires having the right monitors, sensors and collectors in place to generate data about how activities and processes are performing.  You need to monitor both individual components and entire workflows to ensure you don’t miss anything.  Monitors can help you identify things like speed, accuracy, waste and operating environment characteristics that describe your process.  They can also measure things like volume, speed and quality characteristics of your production outputs and business process outcomes.

Proactive problem-solving starts with generating the right set of data about your processes and systems to give you as much early warning as you can get.  Many organizations are looking to new technologies like IoT devices, embedded sensors in manufacturing systems and standardized telemetry capabilities in their IT systems to offer additional real-time insights into their operations.

Turning Monitoring data into alerts

It’s great that you have monitors and instrumentation collecting data, but to identify problems, you will need to filter and organize the signal data to help you figure out what is ‘normal’ versus data signaling there is a problem.  This is where process control and problem-solving methodologies come in.  These methods can help you identify when something is outside of expected range of tolerance, analyze potential incidents and outages before they turn into crisis situations and identify patterns that indicate something in your process might need a deeper assessment.

The sooner you can separate incidents from events, the sooner you can diagnose and take steps to actually resolve them.  Effective problem diagnosis eventually comes down to people and how well they are able to identify “deviations” from natural performance variation.  This initial situational appraisal step is often times overlooked, but essential when wanting to take meaningful action.

There are 4 key components that your employees will put to use in diagnosing problems:

Of these components, knowledge and skill are typically the ones within your immediate control.  Successful proactive problem-solving hinges on your staff, first and foremost of all, being able to gather the most relevant data, visualize the cause-effect relationships as well as the “environmental circumstances” and from there work towards the underlying root causes.

Decision Making

Once you understand the cause of a problem, there are likely different actions you can take to resolve it.  Each alternative will likely have its own risks, costs, benefits, and implications to your organization so making informed decisions is essential.  Some of the factors that your decision makers should consider are:

• Cost/Benefit of each alternative
• Risk of and confidence in the proposed solution
• Balancing short-term and long-term effectiveness
• Full vs. partial mitigation of the business impact
• Negative impacts of not taking action

In proactive problem-solving situations, decision makers will often find themselves weighing the impacts of avoiding the anticipated problem event against the impact of disrupting operations to avoid the event.  When this happens, risk management is essential to prepare for unintended consequences and their impact.

Proactive action

What makes proactive problems solving such a powerful tool for businesses is the ability to initiate actions BEFORE the business realizes that a problem is occurring (or reoccurring in another part of the business).  The proactive action can take many forms, from preventative maintenance, tune-ups and optimization of operations to specific process changes resulting from problem analysis.  Good hygiene practices, patching, data management and frequent health checks can prevent problems from occurring in the first place.  Applying fixes in a timely manner can help mitigate the impact of problems that already occurred.

By paying attention to the signals coming from your environment, diagnosing them quickly and making data-based decisions – you will be able to implement proactive actions to turn your potential problems into non-events.

We are experts in:

For inquiries, details, or a proposal!

Subscribe to the KT Newsletter

• ESSEC Foundation
• ESSEC Alumni
• Corporate Relations
• ESSEC Knowledge
• ESSEC ASIA-PACIFIC
• Digital Business
• Hospitality, Food & Travel
• Management & Society
• Impact Entrepreneurship
• Luxury, Arts & Culture
• International Governance & Dialogue
• Finance & Economy
• ESSEC BUSINESS SCHOOL
• RELATIONS ENTREPRISES
• ESSEC KNOWLEDGE
• CENTRES D'EXCELLENCE
• A propos d’essec ALUMNI

Essec Business School

How to build a proactive workforce: training problem solvers or strategic change agents.

by Karoline Strauss , 03.10.16 Follow

Organizations are increasingly looking for their employees to be proactive – to show initiative in their work and contribute to positive change. But how can organizations increase proactivity in their workforce? Can employees be trained to be more proactive? ESSEC Prof. Karoline Strauss aims to answer this question in her research. “The short answer is: yes”, she says. “The long answer is that which training approach will be effective – and for which employees – depends on the kind of proactivity an organization is looking for in their workforce. Do you want your employees to be proactive problem solvers, fixing issues they come across in their day-to-day job, or do you want them to be proactive in shaping the long-term future of the organization? Our findings show that a different training approach is needed for these two different types of proactivity”.

The proactivity gap

Employees who take a proactive approach at work – who speak up with suggestions, try to bring about improvements, and take initiative – generally perform better, are more satisfied with their job, and progress more quickly in their career. For organizations, a proactive workforce which anticipates changes and is willing to contribute to innovation is seen as a competitive advantage. So how can organizations encourage employees to be more proactive? 

Previous research has highlighted two potential avenues for organizations wishing to increase the proactivity of their workforce: hiring new human resources with particular personalities and skills sets, or changing the work context, for example by enriching existing employees’ work. However, these strategies often encounter two issues that may block their implementation: the lack of opportunity to hire due to difficult economic or budgetary contexts, and the lack in means and resources to enrich job roles. It therefore falls to training and development to offer a feasible approach to promoting employee proactivity. Indeed, in the United States alone, organizations spent over $165 billion on employee training and development in 2013. But how should training approaches aimed at encouraging proactivity in the workforce be designed? And which training approaches are most effective for employees with different needs and priorities? 

Bridging the gap

Karoline Strauss , together with Sharon K. Parker of the University of Western Australia, decided to carry out research to address these questions. “It was clear to us that the training approach an organization should take would depend on the type of proactivity it is looking for in its employees”, says Prof. Strauss. The researchers suspected that a different training approach would be needed to encourage employees to become proactive in solving problems they encountered in their day-to-day work, or to encourage them to involve themselves in strategic change and become proactive in shaping the future of the organization. The researchers developed two distinct training interventions focused on encouraging these two types of proactivity.    

The researchers then recruited 112 volunteers from a police force in the North of England. The volunteers were randomly allocated to one of the two training approaches, or to a third group that received no training whatsoever. “To test whether the training approaches were effective in promoting proactivity, we compare employees who took part in the training to employees in this third group”, explains Prof. Strauss. “This means that we can rule out that employees throughout the organization became more or less proactive because of other changes that took place during the time of our study”. The researchers then tracked employees over 9 months to see if their proactivity increased. The findings showed that both training approaches were potentially effective in encouraging employees to be more proactive, but that employees’ needs and preferences determined whether the training worked for them. 

It depends: Employee needs and preferences matter for proactivity training

Prof. Strauss’s findings showed that employees faced with a high workload were most likely to respond positively to the training approach aimed at encouraging them to be proactive problem solvers. “These employees felt swamped by the demands they were facing”, states Prof. Strauss. “We succeeded in training them to approach their job in a more proactive way and take charge of challenges and obstacles they were facing”. Training these employees to identify problems in their job and to develop ways to address these problems helped them to find more efficient ways of completing their day-to-day tasks. 

On the other hand, the training approach aimed at encouraging employees to become more proactive in shaping the future of the organization was most effective for those who are generally more focused on long-term rather than short-term benefits. Employees who were more interested in the short-term did not respond to the training approach in the same way – they did not become more proactive. “Our findings really show that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to proactivity training”, explains Prof. Strauss. “For organizations who want to enhance proactivity in their workforce this has two important implications. First, what kind of proactivity do they expect? Do they want employees to become proactive in overcoming obstacles and finding more efficient ways of working, or do they want employees who think about the long-term future and about strategic change at the organization level? Second, organizations need to consider the situation the employee is in. What are the employee’s needs and preferences? Pushing somebody who is generally not very interested in the long-term to contribute to bringing about a vision of the organization in the future is unlikely to be effective in making them more proactive, and our findings suggest that it can even backfire”.  

Expanding the bridge 

Prof. Strauss’s work has been recognized for the strength of its experimental design which rules out alternative explanations for changes in employee proactivity. However, she suggests that more research is needed on the effects of training interventions on employee proactivity. “Our study is an important first step in determining which type of training approach can be effective in encouraging employees to be more proactive, and who is most likely to respond positively to the training. But can we, for example, combine the different training approaches, and are there other ways in which employees and organizations can benefit from proactivity training?” Further research will need to explore these questions in other organizational settings. 

Useful links: 

• Acquire the research paper: Intervening to Enhance Proactivity in Organizations: Improving the Present or Changing the Future free on the ResearchGate website.

Other work and publications: 

Strauss, K. & Kelly, C. (in press). An identity-based perspective on proactivity: Future work selves and beyond . In Parker, S. K & Bindl, U. K.  (Eds.) Proactivity at Work. New York: Routledge Organization and Management Series.

Strauss, K. , Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2015). Building and sustaining proactive behaviors: The role of adaptivity and job satisfaction . Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(1), 63-72

Strauss, K. , & Parker, S. K. (2014). Effective and sustained proactivity in the workplace: A self-determination theory perspective . In Gagné, M. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Strauss, K. , Griffin, M. A., & Parker, S. K. (2012). Future Work Selves: How salient hoped-for identities motivate proactive career behaviors . Journal of Applied Psychology, 97 (3), 580 -589.

Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation . Journal of Management, 36 (4), 827-856.

Strauss, K. , Griffin, M. A., & Rafferty, A. E. (2009). Proactivity directed toward the team and organization: The role of leadership, commitment, and role-breadth self-efficacy . British Journal of Management, 20 (3), 279-291.

• human resources
• management department
• center of excellence management & society

Related Articles

How to Foster Innovative Thinking within Corporations?

Making Gender Diversity Work

Turn Good Intentions into Tangible Results

The Brexit Negotiations: The weigh-in before the match

3 keys to marketing your business in the Muslim World

Sustainability in Fifty Shades of Green

Does being proactive increase stress? Depends on what motivates you…

Educating our future business leaders: Beyond teaching as usual

Essec knowledge on x, featured industries.

• Public administration Globalization and the Return of Geography
• Education Optimizing your international experience for career success
• Arts and Entertainment Has Netflix Got What it Takes to Dominate in France?
• Manufacturing Carbon Taxes Target Polluters, but Who Really Pays the Bill?
• Legal services Women and their Relationship to Power

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities (2018)

Chapter: summary.

Proactive policing, as a strategic approach used by police agencies to prevent crime, is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States. It developed from a crisis in confidence in policing that began to emerge in the 1960s because of social unrest, rising crime rates, and growing skepticism regarding the effectiveness of standard approaches to policing. In response, beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, innovative police practices and policies that took a more proactive approach began to develop. This report uses the term “proactive policing” to refer to all policing strategies that have as one of their goals the prevention or reduction of crime and disorder and that are not reactive in terms of focusing primarily on uncovering ongoing crime or on investigating or responding to crimes once they have occurred. Specifically, the elements of proactivity include an emphasis on prevention, mobilizing resources based on police initiative, and targeting the broader underlying forces at work that may be driving crime and disorder. This contrasts with the standard model of policing, which involves an emphasis on reacting to particular crime events after they have occurred, mobilizing resources based on requests coming from outside the police organization, and focusing on the particulars of a given criminal incident.

Proactive policing is distinguished from the everyday decisions of police officers to be proactive in specific situations and instead refers to a strategic decision by police agencies to use proactive police responses in a programmatic way to reduce crime. Today, proactive policing strategies are used widely in the United States. They are not isolated programs used by a select group of agencies but rather a set of ideas that have spread across the landscape of policing.

TABLE S-1 Four Approaches to Proactive Policing

The United States has once again been confronted by a crisis of confidence in policing. Instances of perceived or actual police misconduct have given rise to nationwide protests against unfair and abusive police practices. Although this report is not intended to respond directly to the crisis of confidence in policing that can be seen in the United States today, it is nevertheless important to consider how proactive policing strategies may bear upon this crisis. It is not enough to simply identify “what works” for reducing crime and disorder; it is also critical to consider issues such as how proactive policing affects the legality of policing, the evaluation of the police in communities, potential abuses of police authority, and the equitable application of police services in the everyday lives of citizens.

To that end, the National Institute of Justice and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to review the evidence and discuss the data and methodological gaps on (1) the effects of different forms of proactive policing on crime; (2) whether they are applied in a discriminatory manner; (3) whether they are being used in a legal fashion; and (4) community reaction. The Committee on Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime, Communities, and Civil Liberties was appointed by the National Academies to carry out this task.

The committee made a decision to prioritize proactive policing strategies that are commonly applied in U.S. police agencies; cutting-edge strategies that, though not yet widely adopted, represent important new methods for preventing crime; and strategies that raise concerns about biased or abusive outcomes. In the context of this report, proactive policing is regarded as a strategic concern and refers to the policy decisions of departments regarding the means and goals of policing and not to the individual actions of officers.

Proactive policing has taken a number of different forms over the past two decades, and these variants often overlap in practice. The four broad approaches for proactive policing described in this report are (1) place-based interventions, (2) problem-solving interventions, (3) person-focused interventions, and (4) community-based interventions. Table S-1 summarizes the four approaches and the strategies they encompass. The rest of this summary discusses the consequences of these approaches for law and legality, crime and disorder, community reactions, and racial bias and disparities.

LAW AND LEGALITY

However effective a policing practice may be in preventing crime, it is impermissible if it violates the law. The most important legal constraints on proactive policing are the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause (of the Fourteenth Amendment), and related statutory provisions.

Although proactive policing strategies do not inherently violate the Fourth Amendment, any proactive strategy could lead to Fourth Amendment violations 1 to the degree that it is implemented by having officers engage in stops, searches, and arrests that violate constitutional standards. This risk is especially relevant for stop, question, and frisk (SQF); 2 broken windows policing; 3 and hot spots policing interventions 4 if they use an aggressive practice of searches and seizures to deter criminal activity.

In addition, in conjunction with existing Fourth Amendment doctrine, proactive policing strategies may limit the effective strength or scope of constitutional protection or reduce the availability of constitutional remedies. For example, when departments identify “high crime areas” pursuant to place-based proactive policing strategies, courts may allow stops by officers of individuals within those areas that are based on less individualized behavior than they would require without the “high crime” designation. In this way, geographically oriented proactive policing may lead otherwise identical citizen-police encounters to be treated differently under the law.

The Equal Protection Clause guarantees equal and impartial treatment of citizens by government actors. It governs all policies, decisions, and acts taken by police officers and departments, including those in furtherance of proactive policing strategies. As a result, Equal Protection claims may arise with respect to any proactive policing strategy to the degree that it discriminates against individuals based on their race, religion, or national origin, among other characteristics. Since most policing policies today do not expressly target racial or ethnic groups, most Equal Protection challenges require proving discriminatory purpose in addition to discriminatory effect in order to establish a constitutional violation.

Specific proactive policing strategies, such as SQF and “zero tolerance” versions of broken windows policing, have been linked to violations of both the Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause by courts in private litigation and by the U.S. Department of Justice in its investigations

___________________

1 The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

2 When carried out as a proactive policing strategy, an SQF program relies upon the legal authority granted by court decisions to engage in frequent stops in which suspects are questioned about their activities, frisked if possible, and often searched, usually with consent.

3 In broken windows policing, the police seek to prevent crime by addressing disorder and less serious crime problems. Such police interventions are expected to reinforce and enhance informal social controls within communities.

4 Hot spots policing efforts focus on “micro” units of geography where crime is concentrated. Microgeographic areas are commonly defined to include a single street or a cluster of street segments.

of police departments. Ethnographic studies and theoretical arguments further support the idea that proactive strategies that use aggressive stops, searches, and arrests to deter criminal activity may decrease liberty and increase Fourth Amendment and Equal Protection violations. However, empirical evidence is insufficient—using the accepted standards of causality in social science—to support any conclusion about whether proactive policing strategies systematically promote or reduce constitutional violations [ Conclusion 3-1 ]. In order to establish a causal link, studies would ideally determine the incidence of problematic behavior by police under a proactive policy and compare that to the incidence of the same behavior in otherwise similar circumstances in which a proactive policy is not in place.

However, even when proactive strategies do not lead to constitutional violations, they may raise concerns about deeper legal values such as privacy, equality, autonomy, accountability, and transparency [ Conclusion 3-2 ]. Even procedural justice policing and community-oriented policing, neither of which are likely to violate legal constraints on policing (and, to the extent that procedural justice operates as intended, may make violations of law less likely), may, respectively, undermine the transparency about the status of police-citizen interactions and alter the structure of decision making and accountability in police organizations.

CRIME AND DISORDER

The available scientific evidence suggests that certain proactive policing strategies are successful in reducing crime and disorder. This important conclusion provides support for a growing interest among American police in innovating to develop effective crime prevention strategies. At the same time, there is substantial heterogeneity in the effectiveness of different proactive policing interventions in reducing crime and disorder. For some types of proactive policing, the evidence consistently points to effectiveness, but for others the evidence is inconclusive. Evidence in many cases is also restricted to localized crime prevention impacts, such as specific places, or to specific individuals. Relatively little evidence-based knowledge exists about whether and to what extent the approaches examined in this report will have crime prevention benefits at the larger jurisdictional level (e.g., a city as a whole or even large administrative areas such as precincts within a city), or across all offenders. Furthermore, the crime prevention outcomes that are observed are generally observed only in the short term, so the evidence seldom addresses long-term crime prevention outcomes.

It is important to note here that, in practice, police departments typically implement crime reduction programs that include elements typical of several prevention strategies (as combining elements from multiple strategies may produce more positive outcomes for police agencies). Given this

hybridization of tactics in practice, the committee’s review of the evidence was often hindered by the overlapping character of the real-world proactive policing interventions evaluated in many of the published research studies.

The available research evidence suggests that hot spots policing strategies generate statistically significant crime reduction effects without simply displacing crime into immediately surrounding areas, though there is an absence of evidence on either the long-term impacts of hot spots policing strategies on crime or on possible jurisdictional outcomes (e.g., on crime in a city or in large administrative areas such as precincts). Hot spots policing studies that do measure possible displacement effects tend to find that these programs generate a diffusion of crime control benefits into immediately adjacent areas [ Conclusion 4-1 ].

Another place-based strategy is “predictive policing,” which uses sophisticated computer algorithms to predict changing patterns of future crime. At present, there are insufficient rigorous empirical studies to draw any firm conclusions about either the efficacy of crime prediction software or the effectiveness of associated police operational tactics. It also remains difficult to distinguish a predictive policing approach from hot spots policing [ Conclusion 4-2 ].

A technology relevant to improving police capacity for proactive intervention at specific places is closed circuit television (CCTV), which can be used either passively or proactively. The results from studies examining the introduction of CCTV camera schemes are mixed, but they tend to show modest outcomes in terms of property crime reduction at high-crime places for passive monitoring approaches [ Conclusion 4-3 ]. However, with regard to the proactive use of CCTV, there are insufficient studies to draw conclusions regarding its impact on crime and disorder reduction [ Conclusion 4-4 ].

Despite its popularity as a crime-prevention strategy, there are surprisingly few rigorous program evaluations of problem-oriented policing. Much of the available evaluation evidence consists of non-experimental analyses that find strong associations between problem-oriented interventions and crime reduction. Randomized experimental evaluations generally show smaller, but statistically significant, crime reductions generated by problem-oriented policing programs. Program evaluations also suggest that it is difficult for police officers to fully implement problem-oriented policing. Many problem-oriented policing projects are characterized by weak problem analysis and a lack of non-enforcement responses to targeted problems. Nevertheless, even these limited applications of problem-oriented policing have been shown by rigorous evaluations to generate statistically significant short-term crime prevention impacts. These studies do not address possible jurisdictional impacts of problem-oriented policing and generally do not

assess the long-term impacts of the evaluated interventions on crime and disorder [ Conclusion 4-5 ].

Third party policing, which leverages nonpolice “third parties” (e.g., public housing agencies, property owners, parents, health and building inspectors, and business owners) who are believed to offer significant new resources for preventing crime and disorder, also draws upon the insights of problem solving. Though there are only a small number of program evaluations, the impact of third party policing interventions on crime and disorder has been assessed using randomized controlled trials and rigorous quasi-experimental designs. The available evidence suggests that third party policing generates statistically significant short-term reductions in crime and disorder; there is more limited evidence of long-term impacts. However, little is known about possible jurisdictional outcomes [ Conclusion 4-6 ].

With regard to person-focused interventions, a growing number of quasi-experimental evaluations suggest that focused deterrence programs generate statistically significant short- and long-term areawide crime-reduction impacts. Crime-control impacts have been reported by controlled evaluations testing the effectiveness of focused deterrence programs in reducing gang violence and street crime driven by disorderly drug markets and by non-experimental studies that examine repeat individual offending. It is noteworthy that the size of the effects observed are large, though many of the largest impacts are in studies with evaluation designs that are less rigorous [ Conclusion 4-7 ].

A more controversial person-focused intervention is SQF. Non-experimental evidence regarding the crime-reduction impact of SQF, when implemented as a general citywide crime-control strategy, is mixed [ Conclusion 4-8 ]. A separate body of controlled evaluation research examining the effectiveness of SQF (combined with other self-initiated enforcement activities by officers) in targeting places with serious gun crime problems and focusing on high-risk repeat offenders reports consistent statistically significant short-term crime-reduction effects; jurisdictional impacts, when estimated, are modest. There is an absence of evidence on the long-term impacts of focused uses of SQF on crime [ Conclusion 4-9 ].

The committee also reviewed the crime-prevention impacts of community-based crime-prevention strategies, including community-oriented policing, procedural justice policing (which seeks to impress upon citizens and the wider community that the police exercise their authority in legitimate ways), and broken windows policing. Although a large number of studies of community-oriented policing programs were identified, many of these programs were implemented in tandem with tactics typical of other approaches, such as problem solving. This is not surprising, given that typical implementations of community-oriented policing used by police departments often have included problem solving as a key programmatic

element. The studies also varied in their outcomes, reflecting the broad range of tactics and practices that are included in community-oriented policing programs, and many of the studies were characterized by weak evaluation designs. With these caveats, the committee did not identify a consistent crime-prevention benefit for community-oriented policing programs [ Conclusion 4-10 ].

There is currently only a very small evidence base from which to support conclusions about the impact of procedural justice policing on crime prevention. Existing research does not support a conclusion that procedural justice policing impacts crime or disorder outcomes. At the same time, because the evidence base is small, the committee also cannot conclude that such strategies are ineffective [ Conclusion 4-11 ].

The impacts of broken windows policing are mixed across evaluations, again complicating the ability of the committee to draw strong inferences. However, the available program evaluations suggest that aggressive, misdemeanor arrest–based approaches to control disorder generate small to null impacts on crime [ Conclusion 4-12 ]. In contrast, controlled evaluations of place-based approaches that use problem-solving interventions to reduce social and physical disorder provide evidence of consistent short-term crime-reduction impacts. Little is known about long-term or areawide impacts [ Conclusion 4-13 ].

COMMUNITY REACTIONS

There is broad recognition that a positive relationship with the police has value in its own right, irrespective of any influence it may have on crime or disorder. Democratic theories assert that the police, as an arm of government, are to serve the community and should be accountable to it in ways that elicit public approval and consent. Given this premise and the recent conflicts between the police and the public, the committee thought it very important to assess the impacts of proactive policing on issues, such as fear of crime, collective efficacy, and community evaluation of police legitimacy.

Place-based, person-focused, and problem-solving interventions are distinct from community-based proactive strategies in that they do not directly seek to engage the public to enhance legitimacy evaluations and cooperation. In this context, the concerns regarding community outcomes for these approaches have often focused not on whether they improve community attitudes toward the police but rather on whether the focus on crime control leads inevitably to declines in positive community attitudes. Community-based strategies, in contrast, specifically seek to reduce fear, increase trust and willingness to intervene in community problems, and increase trust and confidence in the police.

There is only an emerging body of research evaluating the impact of

place-based strategies on community attitudes, including both quasi-experimental and experimental studies. However, the consistency of the findings suggests that place-based proactive policing strategies rarely have negative short-term impacts on community outcomes. (There is virtually no evidence on the long-term and jurisdiction-level impacts of place-based policing on community outcomes.) At the same time, the existing evidence does suggest that such strategies rarely improve community perceptions of the police or other community outcome measures [ Conclusion 5-1 ].

The research literature on community impacts of problem-solving interventions is larger. Although much of the literature relies on quasi-experimental designs, a few well-implemented randomized experiments also provide information on community outcomes. Studies show consistent small-to-moderate positive short-term impacts of problem-solving strategies on community satisfaction with the police; there is very little evidence available on the long-term and jurisdiction-level impacts of problem-solving strategies on community outcomes [ Conclusion 5-2 ]. Because problem-solving strategies are so often implemented in tandem with tactics typical of community-based policing (i.e., community engagement), it is difficult to determine what role the problem-solving aspect plays in community outcomes, compared to the impact of the community engagement element. At the same time, there is little consistency found in problem-solving policing’s impacts on perceived disorder/quality of life, fear of crime, and perceived police legitimacy. However, the near absence of backfire effects in the evaluations of problem-solving strategies suggests that the risk of harmful community effects from problem-solving strategies is low [ Conclusion 5-3 ].

The body of research evaluating the impact of person-focused strategies on community outcomes is relatively small, even in comparison with the evidence base on problem-solving and place-based strategies. (Also, the long-term and jurisdictionwide community consequences of person-focused proactive strategies remain untested.) These studies involve qualitative or correlational designs that make it difficult to draw causal inferences about typical impacts of these strategies. Correlational studies show strong negative associations between exposure to such strategies and the attitudes and orientations of individuals who are the subjects of aggressive law enforcement interventions (SQF and proactive traffic enforcement) [ Conclusion 5-4 ]. The studies that measure the impact on the larger community show a more complicated and unclear pattern of outcomes.

The available empirical research on community-oriented policing’s community effects focuses on citizen perceptions of police performance (in terms of what they do and the consequences for community disorder), satisfaction with police, and perceived legitimacy. The evidence suggests that community-oriented policing contributes modest improvements to the community’s view of policing and the police in the short term. (Very

few studies of community-oriented policing have traced its long-term effects on community outcomes or its jurisdictionwide consequences.) This occurs with greatest consistency for measures of community satisfaction and less so for measures of perceived disorder, fear of crime, and police legitimacy. Evaluations of community-oriented policing rarely find “backfire” effects from the intervention on community attitudes. Hence, the deployment of community-oriented policing as a proactive strategy seems to offer prospects of modest gains at little risk of negative consequences [ Conclusions 6-1 and 6-2 ].

Broken windows policing is often evaluated directly in terms of its short-term crime control impacts. The logic model for broken windows policing seeks to alter the community’s levels of fear and collective efficacy as a method of enhancing community social controls and reducing crime in the long run. While this is a key element of the broken windows policing model, the committee’s review of the evidence found that these outcomes have seldom been examined. The evidence was insufficient to draw any conclusions regarding the impact of broken windows policing on community social controls [ Conclusion 6-3 ]. Studies of the impacts of broken windows policing on fear of crime do not support the model’s claim that such programs will reduce levels of fear in the community, at least in the short run.

While there is a rapidly growing body of research on the community impacts of procedural justice policing, it is difficult to draw causal inferences from these studies. In general, the studies show that perceptions of procedurally just treatment are strongly associated with subjective evaluations of police legitimacy and cooperation with the police. However, the extant research base was insufficient for the committee to draw conclusions about whether procedurally just policing causally influences either perceived legitimacy or cooperation [ Conclusion 6-4 ].

Although this committee finding may appear to be at odds with a growing movement to encourage procedurally just behavior among the police, the committee thinks it is important to stress that a finding that there is insufficient evidence to support the expected outcomes of procedural justice policing is not the same as a finding that such outcomes do not exist. Moreover, although the application of procedural justice to policing is relatively new, there is a more extensive evidence base on procedural justice in social psychology and organizational management, as well as on procedural justice with other legal authorities such as the courts. Those studies are often designed in ways that make causal inferences more compelling, and results in those areas suggest meaningful impacts of procedural justice on legitimacy of the institutions and authorities involved. Thus, the application of procedural justice ideas to policing has promise, although further studies are needed to examine the degree to which the success of such implemen-

tations in other social contexts can be replicated in the arena of policing [ Conclusion 6-5 ].

RACIAL BIAS AND DISPARITIES

Concerns about racial bias loom especially large in discussions of policing. The interest of this report was to assess whether and to what extent proactive policing affects racial disparities in police-citizen encounters and racial bias in police behavior. Recent high-profile incidents of police shootings and abusive police-citizen interaction caught on camera have raised questions regarding basic fairness, racial discrimination, and the excessive use of force of all forms against non-Whites, and especially Blacks, in the United States. In considering these incidents, the committee stresses that the origins of policing in the United States are intimately interwoven with the nation’s history of racial prejudice. When the laws of the United States were designed to produce and maintain racial stratification, it was the job of police officers and sheriff’s deputies to enforce those laws. Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, as the country moved away from de jure systems of racial hierarchy, law enforcement tactics under the “War on Crime” and “War on Drugs” were characterized, if not by racial prejudice, then by racially disparate consequences. Although in recent decades, police have often made a strong effort to address racially biased behavior, there remain wide disparities in the extent to which non-White people and White people are stopped or arrested by police. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Justice has identified continued racial disparities and biased behavior in policing in a number of major police agencies.

As social norms have evolved to make overt expressions of bigotry less acceptable, psychologists have developed tools to measure more subtle forms of biased behavior. A series of studies in field settings with police suggest that negative racial attitudes may influence police behavior—although there is no direct research on proactive policing. There is a further growing body of research identifying how these psychological mechanisms may affect behavior, and what types of situations, policies, or practices may exacerbate or ameliorate racially biased behaviors. In a number of studies, social psychologists have found that race may affect decision making, especially under situations where time is short and such decisions need to be made quickly. More broadly, social psychologists have identified dispositional (i.e., individual characteristics) and situational and environmental factors that are associated with higher levels of racially biased behavior.

Proactive strategies often facilitate increased officer contact with residents particularly in high-crime areas involve contacts that are often enforcement-oriented and uninvited, and may allow greater officer discretion compared to standard policing models. These elements align with

broad categories of possible risk factors for racially biased behavior by police officers. For example, when contacts involve stops or arrests, police may be put in situations where they have to “think fast” and react quickly. Social psychologists have argued that such situations may be particularly prone to the emergence of what they call “implicit biases.”

Inferring the role of racial animus or other dispositional and situational risk factors in contributing to disparate impacts is a challenging question for research. There are likely to be large racial disparities in the volume and nature of police–citizen encounters when police target high-risk people or high-risk places, as is common in many proactive policing programs (though focused policing approaches may also reduce overall levels of police intrusion) [ Conclusion 7-1 ]. However, studies that benchmark citizen–police interactions against simple population counts or broad measures of criminal activity do not yield conclusive information regarding the potential for racially biased behavior in proactive policing efforts. Identifying an appropriate benchmark would require detailed information on the geography and nature of the proactive strategy, as well as localized knowledge of the relative importance of the problem.

Such benchmarks are not currently available, and existing evidence does not establish conclusively whether and to what extent the racial disparities associated with concentrated person-focused and place-based enforcement are indicators of statistical prediction, racial animus, or other factors that may motivate biased behavior. However, the history of racial justice in the United States, in particular in the area of criminal justice and policing, as well as ethnographic research that has identified disparate impacts of policing on non-White communities, makes the investigation of the causes of racial disparities a key research and policy concern [ Conclusion 7-2 ].

Per the charge to the committee, this report reviewed a relatively narrow area of intersection between race and policing. This focus, though, is nested in a broader societal framework of possible disparities and behavioral biases across a whole array of social contexts. These factors can affect proactive policing in, for example, the distribution of crime in society and the extent of exposure of specific groups to police surveillance and enforcement. However, it was beyond the scope of this study to review them systematically in the context of the committee’s work.

THE FUTURE OF PROACTIVE POLICING

Proactive policing has become a key part of police efforts to do something about crime in the United States. This report supports the general conclusion that there is sufficient scientific evidence to support the adoption of some proactive policing practices, certainly if the primary policy goal is to reduce crime. Proactive policing efforts that focus on high concentra-

tions of crimes at places or among the high-rate subset of offenders, as well as practices that seek to solve specific crime-fostering problems, show consistent evidence of effectiveness without evidence of negative community outcomes. Community-based strategies have also begun to show evidence of improving the relations between the police and public.

At the same time, there are key gaps in the knowledge base. As was discussed earlier, few studies to date have examined long-term outcomes, and there is typically little or no information about the larger areawide or jurisdictional impacts of these approaches. There are also significant gaps in the evidence that do not allow one to identify with reasonable confidence the effects of proactive policing on other outcomes. For example, existing research provides little guidance as to whether police programs to enhance procedural justice will improve community perceptions of police legitimacy or community cooperation with the police. Little is known about the impacts of proactive policing on the legality of police behavior and on racially biased behavior; these are critical issues that must be addressed in future studies.

Much has been learned over the past two decades about proactive policing programs. But, now that scientific support for these approaches has accumulated, it is time for greater investment in understanding what is cost-effective, how such strategies can be maximized to improve the relationships between the police and the public, and how they can be applied in ways that do not lead to violations of the law by the police.

This page intentionally left blank.

Proactive policing, as a strategic approach used by police agencies to prevent crime, is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States. It developed from a crisis in confidence in policing that began to emerge in the 1960s because of social unrest, rising crime rates, and growing skepticism regarding the effectiveness of standard approaches to policing. In response, beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, innovative police practices and policies that took a more proactive approach began to develop. This report uses the term "proactive policing" to refer to all policing strategies that have as one of their goals the prevention or reduction of crime and disorder and that are not reactive in terms of focusing primarily on uncovering ongoing crime or on investigating or responding to crimes once they have occurred.

Proactive Policing reviews the evidence and discusses the data and methodological gaps on: (1) the effects of different forms of proactive policing on crime; (2) whether they are applied in a discriminatory manner; (3) whether they are being used in a legal fashion; and (4) community reaction. This report offers a comprehensive evaluation of proactive policing that includes not only its crime prevention impacts but also its broader implications for justice and U.S. communities.

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Artificial Intelligence
• Generative AI
• Business Operations
• Cloud Computing
• Data Center
• Data Management
• Emerging Technology
• Enterprise Applications
• IT Leadership
• Digital Transformation
• IT Strategy
• IT Management
• Diversity and Inclusion
• IT Operations
• Project Management
• Software Development
• Vendors and Providers
• Enterprise Buyer’s Guides
• United States
• Middle East
• Italia (Italy)
• Netherlands
• United Kingdom
• New Zealand
• Data Analytics & AI
• Newsletters
• Foundry Careers
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Copyright Notice
• Member Preferences
• About AdChoices
• Your California Privacy Rights

Our Network

• Computerworld
• Network World

What is root cause analysis? A proactive approach to change management

Root cause analysis (RCA) focuses on fostering a proactive approach to solving problems before they happen and eliminating the potential for flaws to reoccur in the future.

Root cause analysis definition

Root cause analysis (RCA) is a problem-solving process that focuses on identifying the root cause of issues or errors with the goal of preventing them from reoccurring in the future. RCA is typically part of service management methodologies and frameworks, such as ITIL , TQM , and Kanban , that focus on continuous process improvement . This type of analysis can help identify flaws in IT processes, potential security breaches, and faults in business processes.

When a problem is identified and removed, it is considered a “root cause” if it prevents the problem from reoccurring. If, however, a problem is removed and it impacts the event’s outcome, but not in the way intended, then it is a “causal factor.” RCA is typically used to find the root cause of software or infrastructure problems to improve the quality and efficiency of processes, and thereby to save time and money. Every potential cause in a given process is identified and analyzed to ensure the organization is treating the disease, rather than just the symptoms.

Reactive vs. proactive problem management

Reactive management and proactive management are the two main approaches organizations take to repairing issues and solving problems. With reactive management, problems are fixed soon after they occur, often called “putting out fires.” The goal is to act quickly to resolve issues and alleviate any effects of a problem as soon as possible.

Proactive management, on the other hand, aims to prevent problems from reoccurring. It is focused less on quickly solving problems and instead on analyzing them to find ways to prevent them from happening again. That’s where root cause analysis comes in. Its methodology is best suited to support proactive problem management’s goal of identifying and fixing underlying issues, rather than just reacting to problems as they happen.

Root cause analysis steps

While there’s no strict rulebook on how to conduct a root cause analysis, certain guidelines can help ensure your root cause analysis process is effective. The four main steps that most professionals agree are essential for RCA to be successful include the following:

• Identification and description: Organizations must first identify the failures, errors, or events that triggered the problem in question and then establish event descriptions to explain what happened.
• Chronology: After identifying these issues, organizations must then create a sequential timeline of events to better visualize the root cause and any contributing causal factors. Here, it’s important to establish the nature of the event, the impact it had, and where and when the problem occurred.
• Differentiation: Once the sequence of events is established, data involved with a particular issue can be matched to historical data from past analysis to identify the root cause, causal factors, and non-causal factors.
• Causal graphing: Those investigating the problem should be able to establish key events that explain how the problem occurred and convert that data into a causal graph.

Root cause analysis takes a systematic approach to identifying problems and requires the effort of full teams to properly perform the analysis. Those tasked with the analysis typically work backwards to determine what happened, why it happened, and how to reduce the chances of it happening again. They can trace triggered actions to find the root cause that started the chain reaction of errors in a process to remedy it. These steps help guide the process and give organizations a framework for how to successfully complete a root cause analysis.

Root cause analysis methods

RCA is already baked into several IT frameworks and methodologies as a step for change, problem, or risk management. It’s been established as a proven, effective way to support continuous process and quality improvement. But if you are conducting a root cause analysis outside of a separate process management framework, organizations typically employ the following methods to ensure a successful RCA:

• Form a team to conduct the RCA and evaluate processes and procedures in the organization that have flaws. This team should be built by bringing together employees who work in relevant business areas or who work directly with the broken processes.
• Once the analysis begins, it can take upwards of two months to complete. Each step of the process is given equal weight whether it’s defining and understanding the problem, identifying possible causes, analyzing the effects of the problem, or determining potential solutions.
• Teams should meet at least once per week, if not more often, with meetings being kept to no longer than two hours with a loose agenda. The meetings are intended to be relatively creative, so you want to avoid bogging people down with too much structure.
• Team members should be assigned specific roles or tasks so everyone has a clear understanding of what they should be investigating.
• Upon finding a potential solution, it’s crucial to follow up to make sure that the solution is effective and that it’s implemented successfully.

Root cause analysis tools

You don’t need much to conduct a root cause analysis, but there are several tools that are helpful and commonly used to help make the process easier. Commonly used tools to perform an effective root cause analysis include:  

• Fishbone diagrams: A fishbone diagram is mapped out in the shape of a fishbone, allowing you to group causes into sub-categories to be analyzed.
• Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA): FMEA is a technique that can be used to map out a system or process and identify the failures within it. It can be used not only to identify flaws but also to map out how often they happen, what actions have already been taken, and what actions have been effective in remedying the issue.
• Pareto charts: A Pareto chart is a simple bar chart that maps out related events and problems in order of how often they occur. This helps identify which problems are more significant than others and where to focus process improvement efforts.
• Scatter diagrams: A scatter diagram plots data on a chart with an x and y axis. This is another useful tool for mapping out problems to understand their impact and significance.
• Fault tree analysis: A fault tree analysis uses Boolean logic to identify the cause of problems or flaws. They are mapped out on a diagram that looks like a tree, where every potential cause is included as its own “branch.”
• 5 whys analysis: With 5 whys analysis, you will ask the question “why” five times too delve deeper into a problem to develop a clearer picture of its root cause.

Root cause analysis training

While RCA is a part of other frameworks and methodologies, there are training programs and courses designed to focus on helping people better understand how to perform the analysis. If you want to get more training on RCA, here are a handful of programs designed to help:

• Workhub Root Cause Analysis training
• Udemy Root Cause Analysis course
• Pink Elephant Problem Management: Root Cause Analysis Specialist certification course
• NSF Root cause analysis CAPA training and certification
• Coursera Root Cause Analysis course
• ASQ root cause analysis course
• Lean Six Sigma Root cause analysis online training

Related content

3 ways generative ai is transforming the retail industry, the fast track to intelligent retail modernization with tcs and microsoft cloud, the power players of retail transformation: iot, 5g, and ai/ml on microsoft cloud, improving employee experience in the ai-powered hybrid workplace on microsoft cloud, from our editors straight to your inbox.

Sarah White is a senior writer for CIO.com, covering IT careers, hiring & staffing, and diversity.

More from this author

Modernizing your resume for executive it leadership, ncwit digitally transforms the dei journey to help uplift women in it, black tech pipeline connects black it pros to dei-committed employers, how built unites black it pros and builds equity, most popular authors.

• Paula Rooney Senior Writer
• Martin Bayer Editor in Chief B2B COMPUTERWOCHE, CIO, CSO in Germany

Show me more

Why 5g and edge computing are key to retail success on microsoft cloud.

How to build ROI from cloud migration

How to power a sustainable enterprise on Microsoft Cloud

Tech layoffs continue, while AI prevents them from getting new jobs quickly

CIO Leadership Live Middle East with Bruno Ascencio, Head of Data Transformation at First Abu Dhabi Bank

CIO Leadership Live Middle East with Faisal Ali, Group CIO, Gargash Group

3 Leadership Tips: Tina Mathas, CTO, General Bank of Canada

3 Leadership Tips: Parm Sandhu, CIO for Immigrant Services Society of British Columbia

Sponsored Links

• IDC report: Life-cycle services can help align technology, operational, and business outcomes.
• Digital infrastructure plays a big role in business outcomes. Read this IDC report to learn more.

Problem Solving

• First Online: 16 February 2022

Cite this chapter

• David Lapesa Barrera 3  

Part of the book series: Springer Series in Reliability Engineering ((RELIABILITY))

943 Accesses

This chapter introduces some useful tools for Root Cause Analysis (RCA) and selection of optimum solutions, and aims to anticipate risks and potential issues by using Proactive Problem Solving methodologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

BowTie Methodology Manual. BowTieXP. Revision 15, 2015.

Maintenance Error Decision Aid (MEDA) User’s Guide. Boeing. September 2013.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Zaragoza, Spain

David Lapesa Barrera

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Lapesa Barrera .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Lapesa Barrera, D. (2022). Problem Solving. In: Aircraft Maintenance Programs. Springer Series in Reliability Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90263-6_28

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90263-6_28

Published : 16 February 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-90262-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-90263-6

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research