Further Resources

Why Your Team's Problem-Solving Skills Are Actually Making Things Worse

The conference room smelled like desperation and stale coffee when I walked into what would become the most expensive thirty-minute meeting of that company's quarter.

Six department heads sat around a mahogany table, armed with whiteboards, sticky notes, and enough problem-solving frameworks to choke a consultant. They'd been "workshopping solutions" for three hours. The problem? Their biggest client was threatening to walk because of delayed deliveries.

What I witnessed next changed how I think about workplace problem-solving forever.

The Framework Fallacy

Here's what nobody tells you about creative problem solving training: most teams are so busy following the process, they forget to actually solve the problem.

This particular team had religiously followed their seven-step problem-solving model. They'd identified stakeholders, mapped root causes, brainstormed solutions, and created action plans. Beautiful work. Textbook stuff.

Except they'd completely missed the obvious solution staring them in the face.

Their delivery delays weren't caused by logistics or supply chain issues. They weren't even caused by staff shortages or system failures. The delays happened because their warehouse manager, Trevor, was manually checking every single outbound shipment against a printed spreadsheet because he didn't trust the new inventory system.

One conversation with Trevor would've saved them three hours of corporate theatre.

Why Smart People Make Dumb Decisions

I've been running problem-solving workshops for fifteen years, and I've noticed something disturbing. The more educated the team, the more likely they are to overcomplicate simple problems.

It's like watching someone use a sledgehammer to crack an egg. Technically proficient, but spectacularly wrong for the situation.

Last month, I worked with a Perth-based tech startup whose app was crashing every Tuesday afternoon. They'd assembled a crisis team, brought in external consultants, and were considering rebuilding their entire backend infrastructure.

The actual problem? Their server automatically updated every Tuesday at 2 PM, and the update process temporarily maxed out the CPU.

Solution cost: $0 (just reschedule the updates). Investigation cost: $47,000.

This is what happens when problem-solving becomes performative rather than practical.

The Dangerous Myth of Collaborative Solutions

Now, before you start sharpening your pitchforks, let me be clear: collaboration has its place. But here's an unpopular opinion that'll probably get me uninvited from a few management conferences—most workplace problems are solved faster by one person thinking clearly than by six people thinking together.

Group problem-solving often creates more problems than it solves. You get groupthink, you get politics, you get people protecting their turf instead of finding solutions. Worse, you get solutions designed by committee, which means they're usually complicated, expensive, and nobody really understands how they work.

I've seen teams spend weeks developing elegant solutions to problems that no longer exist because the business environment changed while they were busy facilitating workshops.

When Problem-Solving Tools Become Problems Themselves

The business world is obsessed with problem-solving methodologies. Six Sigma, Design Thinking, Lean Problem Solving, Root Cause Analysis—we've got more frameworks than Ikea has instruction manuals.

And like Ikea instruction manuals, they're often more confusing than helpful.

I once watched a team use a fishbone diagram to analyse why their coffee machine wasn't working. Forty-five minutes later, they'd identified seventeen potential root causes ranging from "inadequate maintenance protocols" to "insufficient stakeholder engagement in appliance utilisation strategies."

The actual problem? Someone had unplugged it to charge their phone.

Here's the thing about problem-solving tools: they're designed for complex, systemic issues. Using them on simple problems is like performing surgery with a chainsaw. Technically possible, but probably not recommended.

The Australian Approach: Just Fix It

There's something beautifully pragmatic about the Australian approach to problems. We tend to cut through the bureaucracy and just get on with it. Maybe it's our convict heritage, or maybe we're just too impatient for elaborate processes.

I remember working with a mining company in the Pilbara where equipment breakdowns were costing them $50,000 per hour. Instead of forming a task force and conducting a comprehensive analysis, the site supervisor walked around the pit, talked to the operators, and identified the problem in twenty minutes.

Turned out, the maintenance schedule had been designed by head office in Melbourne for equipment operating in temperate conditions. In 45-degree heat with dust storms, the equipment needed servicing twice as often.

Simple problem, simple solution. No framework required.

Why Your Best Problem-Solvers Aren't In The Meeting Room

The people who actually understand your problems are usually the ones doing the work, not the ones managing it. But they're rarely invited to the problem-solving sessions.

I've made it a rule in my consulting work: before any formal problem-solving process begins, I spend time with the people closest to the issue. The customer service reps, the warehouse staff, the sales team, the cleaners. They see things management doesn't.

At one company, the executive team was baffled by declining customer satisfaction scores. They'd analysed everything—product quality, pricing, marketing messages, website usability. They were preparing to hire an expensive customer experience consultant.

I spent an afternoon in their call centre and discovered the real issue within an hour. Their phone system had been "upgraded" six months earlier, and now customers had to navigate through seven menu options before reaching a human. Average wait time had gone from thirty seconds to eight minutes.

The call centre staff had been complaining about this for months, but nobody in management had bothered to listen.

The Speed Trap

Here's another unpopular truth: fast decisions are often better than perfect decisions.

While your team is busy optimising their solution through multiple iterations and stakeholder consultations, your competitors are implementing good-enough solutions and moving on to the next problem.

I worked with a Brisbane logistics company that spent four months developing the perfect route optimisation algorithm. Beautiful piece of work—saved them 12% on fuel costs and reduced delivery times by an average of fifteen minutes.

Meanwhile, their main competitor had implemented a basic GPS tracking system in two weeks, improved their customer communication, and stolen three major contracts.

Sometimes good enough today beats perfect next quarter.

What Actually Works

After fifteen years of watching teams solve problems (and create new ones), here's what I've learned actually works:

Start with the obvious. Before you bring out the frameworks and facilitate the workshops, check if there's a simple explanation. Talk to the people doing the work. Look for recent changes. Ask "what's different?"

Set time limits. Give yourself thirty minutes to understand the problem before you start solving it. If you can't explain it simply after thirty minutes, you probably don't understand it well enough to fix it.

Solve for today, not forever. Most problems don't need permanent solutions—they need immediate relief. You can always improve the solution later.

Test quickly and cheaply. Instead of developing comprehensive solutions, try quick experiments. See what works before you commit resources.

Accept that some problems solve themselves. Not every issue needs intervention. Sometimes the best problem-solving strategy is patience.

The Real Problem With Problem-Solving

The biggest problem with workplace problem-solving isn't that people are bad at it. It's that we've turned it into a performance instead of a practice.

We've made it so complicated, so formal, so process-driven that we've forgotten the fundamental truth: problems exist to be solved, not analysed to death.

Your team probably has excellent problem-solving skills. They solve problems every day—they figure out how to get the printer working, how to handle difficult customers, how to meet impossible deadlines.

The problems start when we take those natural problem-solving abilities and bury them under layers of methodology and bureaucracy.

Sometimes the best problem-solving training is remembering that most problems are simpler than they appear, and the solution is usually closer than you think.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go solve the problem of why my coffee tastes like cardboard. I suspect it's because I forgot to put coffee in the machine, but I should probably form a task force to be sure.

Further Resources: