Effective problem solving hinges on the ability to frame a problem properly. Not for nothing do people repeatedly trot out Einstein’s (purported) quote that “If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions.” Spending 92% of the time trying to understand the real problem is a good countermeasure to the very human tendency to leap to solutions.
A recent article in Bloomberg City Lab highlights the difficulty of not jumping to conclusions when framing a complex problem. The author points out that as homicides and gun crimes rise in some US cities, many in the media, law enforcement, and even the government have blamed protestors in their framing of the problem:
[The problem is] “the anti-police rhetoric that’s permeating our country.” (Detroit Police Chief James Craig)
[The problem is] “a great amount of disrespect and hatred of police officers in our country right now.” (Michigan U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider)
[The problem is] “all the rhetoric of defund the police, get rid of the police, abolish the police.” (NYPD Chief Terrence Monahan)
[The problem is] that “in many of these communities, gun violence has increased in the aftermath of George Floyd’s killing in Minneapolis, and the widespread protests against police brutality and racial injustice that followed.” (TIME magazine)
This kind of framing allows a solution to masquerade as a problem, resulting in an intellectual cul-de-sac. The only way to deal with the situation is to reverse the problem statement by (somehow) getting rid of the angry rhetoric and banning protests.
Is rhetoric part of the problem? Possibly. But it completely ignores the far-reaching effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which certainly had some effect on communities across the country. Moreover, while protests and inflammatory language might indeed be playing a part, violent crime was already going up in some cities before the protests started.
Framing the problem this way has significant consequences. It means the difference between policy countermeasures aimed at supporting community institutions, instead of the current federal strategy focus of bringing in more police.
How else could the problem be framed? As I’ve written before, a good problem statement leads to open vistas rather than intellectual cul-de-sacs. It results in deeper inquiry, and consideration of multiple countermeasures. In this case, better framing might look something like this:
“The problem is that citizens don’t view the police as allies, but as enemies.”
“The problem is that shooting incidents in Atlanta in May were 27% higher than last year, while every other crime category was lower.”
“The problem is that for the first time, violent and non-violent crime statistics are moving in opposite directions.
Notice how these alternatives don’t push us to a specific countermeasure. Rather, they push us towards deeper investigation. They encourage us to ask “why” instead of leading us inexorably toward a specific solution. And that’s important, because as H.L. Mencken said, “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
I’m not a social scientist. But I’m writing about this example because I think we can see the same kind of thinking permeate the problem framing in most organizations. It’s pernicious and not easily recognized. Seeing this kind of thinking outside your organization is a good way to increase your sensitivity to the issue, and improve your own problem solving abilities.