How Better Problem Definition Leads to Better Outcomes
By Suzie Thoraval
A practical leadership skill for leading in complexity and uncertainty
“If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions.”
Recently, I was working with two contractors to improve how I store and organise my thought leadership. One built a system that made sense to her. The other adapted it based on what she thought mattered. As we talked it through, I had an uncomfortable but useful realisation: I had a different view to both of them about the purpose of the system.
It became clear we needed to pause and get aligned on the problem we were solving and what success looked like. That wasn’t easy, especially knowing how much work had already gone into the cataloguing.
Even so, it felt like the right call. Taking that time was far more likely to save rework, time and money down the track.
Leadership in complexity rarely offers neat problems
Many leaders I work with are operating in environments that feel busy and unpredictable. Issues overlap, information is patchy, and there’s constant pressure to act before everything is clear.
In that context, it makes sense that the natural inclination is to move straight into solution mode. Sometimes it’s necessary — safety issues or system failures really do call for quick judgement and decisive action.
Often, though, things feel urgent because pressure is building rather than because a real risk is about to land. In those moments, a brief pause can improve the quality of the decision.
Leaders with adaptive stability stay grounded while responding to change. They know when to widen thinking and explore, and when to narrow it and decide.
Part of that judgement comes from getting clear on the problem and the outcome before moving fully into solutions.
A cautionary tale of rushing to solutions
In the early 1990s, Denver International Airport attempted to build a cutting-edge, fully automated system to move bags from check-in to planes using advanced technology.
It was ambitious, expensive (nearly $600 million spent) and technologically complex. But once implemented, it was clear that the solution didn’t solve the real operational challenges. Technical failures caused the airport to have to revert to multiple manual systems.
Part of the problem was that different stakeholders were solving different problems at the same time — speed, cost, passenger experience, scalability — without settling on a clear, shared objective.
The result was years of delay, cost overruns and a system that never delivered what people hoped for.
The issue was less one of a failed technology and more that they had not taken the time to get on the same page about the problem they were solving.
Pressure reduces the quality of decisions
Research on decision-making consistently shows that poorly framed problems lead to poorer outcomes. People tend to “satisfice” by solving the first problem they recognise leaning heavily on known assumptions and familiar patterns rather than solving the right problem. Teams that spend time framing the problem tend to generate clearer options and experience less rework later.
More recent research in complex systems and design thinking shows that teams who invest time upfront in framing the problem generate better solutions, reduce downstream rework, and make decisions they are more confident standing behind.
So taking time for clarity now pays off later.
What this looks like in practice
Pausing to check you are solving the right problem doesn’t have to take a long time. In everyday leadership, it could look like:
asking an extra question at the start of a conversation to check that people are responding to the same issue
taking time to agree on what success would look like before assessing options
surfacing assumptions early so there’s clarity and rework is less likely or
sensing when things feel urgent because pressure is being applied that can be resisted just long enough to take the time you need to ensure you and your team are solving the right problem.
In complex environments, this way of working tends to reduce people acting at cross-purposes and wasting time, resources and money in rework.
Leaders can be more confident in the quality of the decisions they have made, even if they have had to make trade-offs to find a way forward.
You wouldn’t want medicine before you know your diagnosis
Using quick decision-making in every situation would be like prescribing treatment before diagnosing the illness. If the treatment isn’t addressing the underlying condition, even if the symptoms are reduced by the medicine prescribed, the problem will tend to return and sometimes it is more complicated than if you had caught it earlier and diagnosed the root cause in the first place.
Leadership decisions work much the same way. Taking time to get clear about the problem and the objective early acts as the diagnosis that guides everything that follows, including how success and risk are later assessed.
Questions to help define a clear problem statement and objective
Before jumping to solutions, leaders can ask:
To define the problem:
What is actually happening? When does it happen?
What evidence do we have, and what are we assuming?
Who experiences this problem differently, and how?
What is not the problem, even though it might look like one?
To define the objective:
If we solved this problem well, what would be different?
What outcome are we trying to achieve, not just what activity are we trying to do?
How will we know this problem has been addressed?
What constraints matter (time, cost, risk, people)?
Discussing the answers to these questions will sharpen the progress towards a quality decision that solves the right problem.
Next time you are facing an important decision
Consider whether a pause is needed to ensure you understand the problem and get on the same page about the outcome you and your team are seeking.
Ask yourself, am I rushing the decision to deliver an outcome or will it be worth the investment to pause and clarify the problem I’m solving?
