Problem Solving in the Workplace Starts With the Decision

An emergency water-pipe crew can lose half a shift to the wrong hole if the supervisor gives them a thin brief. I have used that case for years because it shows what most people miss about problem solving in the workplace. The crew is not short of effort. The room is short of a decision.

In the Universal Decision-Making Method, problem solving in the workplace means turning a complaint into a decision and exposing the assumption that tells you whether Sufficient certainty is enough to act.

Roger Estall and I put the work-gang case in Deciding because workplaces do not usually fail for lack of activity. They fail because complaint gets mistaken for progress. The mess is recited and ideas are requested, yet the meeting still ends before anyone says what has to be decided or what the preferred answer is assuming. Committees like that arrangement because it spreads the heat. Consultants like it too, because a room that never decides is a room that buys another workshop.

Why problem solving in the workplace turns into organised complaining

Click to expand

Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock studied 92 real team meetings in 20 German organisations and found the split I keep seeing in boardrooms and plants. Some meetings stay trapped in complaint and criticism loops. Others move into solution-focused talk with enough structure to produce a next step. Two and a half years later, those meeting habits still tracked team productivity and organisational success. That is a long afterlife for one bad meeting habit.

The work-gang example is the same story in boots and mud. A foreman who gives the background and the likely snag gets ideas back from the crew. A foreman who says only "go fix it" gets obedience and guesswork. If you want the wider distinction between analysis and commitment, I wrote that out in problem solving and decision making. Here the point is narrower. Most workplace meetings do not need more discussion. They need somebody to stop the complaining before it starts breeding.

Psychological safety is permission to say the ugly thing

Amy Edmondson's 1999 field study of 51 work teams is still useful because it says something unfashionably plain. Better teams often report more errors. They do not make more mistakes. They are safer places to say that something is wrong. When people can speak about uncertainty or failed assumptions without being swatted for it, the team learns faster.

I do not read that as an argument for being nice. I read it as an argument against managerial vanity. The dangerous assumption is usually already in the room, half-spoken, waiting to see whether the boss wants honesty or endorsement. A meeting that punishes disclosure is not doing problem solving at all. It is staging composure, which is how groupthink in decision making takes hold. That is why I keep returning to decisiveness in leadership. Decisiveness is what the room sees after somebody has made it safe to expose the bad assumption.

Problem solving in the workplace gets better when the boss talks less

The leadership trade dislikes this because it flatters the senior person less. Google found in its Project Aristotle study of 180 teams that the best groups were not explained by seniority or star talent. They were explained by conversational turn-taking and social sensitivity. None of that survives a boss who reads out the answer before the room has finished the question.

I have sat in too many management meetings where the senior executive asks for open debate straight after reading out the answer he already wants. That is not an invitation. It is stage direction. A leader earns better workplace problem solving by setting context, then keeping quiet long enough for somebody lower down the ladder to say what the room is pretending not to know. That is the hard edge of effective decision making in leadership, not the soft edge.

Turn the problem into a decision before the meeting ends

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg reported in his HBR piece on problem diagnosis that 85% of 106 C-suite executives said their organisations were bad at diagnosing problems, and 87% said the weakness carried significant cost. I believe them. Most people start with the wrong noun. They say the problem is slow elevators or late deliveries. Those are symptoms. The meeting gets sharper when somebody asks what decision is actually sitting underneath the complaint.

Once the real decision is named, the politics stop hiding. A team can talk about "communication issues" for an hour with no owner. Ask whether the supervisor should be replaced or the line should shut for two days, and the room suddenly remembers that choices have consequences. That is why so much workplace problem solving stays at the level of symptoms. Symptoms are safer than decisions. The problem solving examples in the workplace I keep returning to all share the same defect: a room that resourced a symptom and never tested the belief underneath it.

This is where the method earns its keep. Frame the decision properly, then Recognise assumptions until you have Sufficient certainty to act. Before people leave, write down what would force the room back together. If the issue on the table carries real consequence for jobs or capital, the next stop is usually making difficult decisions as a leader, not another cheerful brainstorming session. The wider case for why those sessions fail is in the guide to problem solving techniques in business.

What I want written down before people leave

I want the decision recorded in plain English, along with the assumption most likely to break it. If nobody is willing to write that sentence, the meeting was never serious.

Roger and I use the hospital and airline examples in Deciding because those industries learned the lesson in body counts. A surgical team runs a pre-operative checklist not because the surgeon is incompetent but because assumptions left unspoken kill patients. An airline crew reads back instructions not to slow the operation down but because a misheard altitude or a skipped waypoint has brought aircraft into terrain. Cross-checking is not a slight on authority. It is what serious people do when the cost of being wrong lands on somebody else. Workplaces talk as if only the grand strategic choices need that discipline. In practice, a roster change or a procurement shortcut can do the damage if nobody records what changed and who must know.

If you want the wider argument about how leaders should run these rooms, read the full guide to decision making for leaders. My shorter point is this: work teams solve problems when the leader stops mistaking activity for progress and turns the mess into a decision that can be tested.

I have seen ordinary crews do this well and senior executives do it badly. Rank has very little to do with it. The difference is whether somebody is prepared to name the decision and let the room say what it rests on before the minutes close over the whole thing.

---

Grant Purdy is the co-author, with Roger Estall, of Deciding (2020), and the architect of the Universal Decision-Making Method.