March 30
The issues and situations that trouble us and at times keep us awake at night have many names: predicament, dilemma, conundrum, double bind, challenge, quandary, enigma. The term we most often use when we talk about these concerns is Problem. It is a word we use frequently and one that everyone understands: Something isn’t working the way it should; or a situation is unacceptable and needs to be changed; or something has happened that has interfered with the way we think things should be.
Yet whenever we talk about problems – a problem, my problem, or our problem – rather than taking a step forward, we can easily take one backward. Even with all of our good intentions, when we try to discuss a problem, we often create a new one. We say “problem,” thinking that all who hear us know what we mean. But frequently what we are talking about, and want to “fix,” is not a problem at all, but something else – a “mess.” Not being aware of the difference between “mess” and problem only compounds the difficulties we have with problems.
This new problem that often appears when we talk about problems has a name: Misunderstanding.
The concept of a “mess” when applied to situations that trouble us comes from the writings of systems theorist Russell Ackoff. I quoted his definition of mess in the last essay: “[People] are not confronted with problems” …but with dynamic situations that consist of systems of changing problems that interact with each other. I call such situations ‘messes.’ [People] do not solve problems; they manage messes.”
When we talk about problems, and think we are talking about “problems,” what we are usually referring to are “messes.” We end up setting the stage for new problems: Serious misunderstandings often leading to premature conclusions, blaming and fault finding, increased frustration, and unhelpful conflict.
Confusions About The Drug Addiction “Problem”
Suppose, for example, you are convinced that there is a drug problem in your community and you want to to do take action against it. You gather your neighbors together and begin by saying, “We have a drug problem in our neighborhood and we need do something about it.” “Drug problem” signals that you are concerned about drugs. So far so good. But says little about the nature of your concern and what you think should be done about it. There are, after all, many drug problems. Are you concerned that high school students are smoking pot; or that the rate of addiction to pain medication is skyrocketing; or middle-aged, middle-class professionals are smoking joints in their homes on weekends; or that people in economic difficulties can’t get the medicine they need for their illnesses; or that people are smuggling marijuana into the state from Colorado and selling it on street corners; or that the rate of heroin addiction is rising rapidly; or that people who are apprehended with small amounts of marijuana are being unfairly convicted and sent to prison, and on and on. To say “We have a drug problem” obscures the fact that there are actually many drug problems, all involving drugs, all connected in one way or another with each other, and also connected with almost everything else in society: relationships, families, the military, schools, health, safety, economic and political issues, and even national security. “Drug problem” is in actuality a big, complicated, confusing “mess.” And as Ackoff observes, messes cannot be solved, they can only be managed. The first step in managing messes is to find the potential problems within the messes that concern you and then turn them into problems that can be worked on. If productive work is expected on the “drug problem” or any other problem, then moving from “messes” to problems is required.
We Need Real Problems
Messes are hard to ignore. They are all around us: compelling, demanding, disgusting, upsetting. They often threaten our sensibilities, our values, and our convictions of how things ought to be from our perspective. Given our tendencies to be dissatisfied with situations and conditions that do not meet with our approval, we often feel that something should be done! And sometimes we step forward and volunteer to do it. Yet most of the time, the actions we take to “solve” messes are premature and consequently ineffectual. Rather than make things better, they often make them even “messier.”
What we need in order to make a difference are problems that we can do something with.
What Are Problems?
The most useful definition of problem has several parts:
- Problems are abstractions. They do not exist fully formed. They begin as vague concerns, persistent worries, and debilitating fears about certain issues, situations and events.
- Problems are created by people: “Problems are abstractions extracted from messes by analysis” writes Russell Ackoff. “They are to messes as atoms are to table and chairs.” In order to move from vague feelings to specific problems, someone needs to give them substance and form.
- A problem is defined as a gap between the present state and a future one, between where we are today and where we want to be tomorrow.
- Problems begin to emerge when we become emotionally involved with the existence of this gap. Certain issues or situations matter to us, and we want to see something done about them. That we are “here” and not “there” bothers us, and can be a challenge for us to take action.
- And finally, while a problem is a gap we want to see closed – we want to get from here to there – we lack the knowledge and/or the skills to make it happen.
From “Messes” to Problems
In order to make progress with the issues and situations that concern us, we need to move from “messes” to problems. We need to be able to point to and talk about the gaps between where we are and were we want to be. The key words from Ackoff’s definition quoted above are abstraction; extracted from messes; and analysis. Problems are not apples hanging from tree branches waiting to be picked, or nuggets of fools gold on the ground waiting to be gathered up and put into a basket. They are created by human beings who extract them from messes by talking, analyzing, arguing, insisting, and contending. Only when people get to some measure of agreement on what the problem is – defining the gap between Here and There – can they begin do productive work.
When the concerned citizens come up with a definition of their drug problem -“The part of the drug problem we have agreed to tackle is the selling of drugs by dealers in Pioneer Park. We want it stopped!” – then we can begin to go to work, first by defining the nature of the gap itself – its depth, breadth and and length – then by identifying the obstacles that stand in the way of reaching their goal, and finally by coming up with ways to attack the obstacles.
Ford Executives Move From Mess To Problem
It is 1984. Lew Ross, the senior vice-president of Ford Motor in charge of factories, was at the end of his rope. He was frustrated with the constant bickering and in-fighting between Engineering and Manufacturing. Ford had tried for decades to get the two departments to work together collaboratively with no success. Finally, Ross called a meeting of the dozen upper-level managers from both departments and laid it on the line. “I am sick of the petty arguments and fights that have gone on for over twenty-five years. Enough is enough! We don’t care how long it takes, but we want you to answer one single question: Will Engineering report to Manufacturing, or will Manufacturing report to Engineering?” Then he left the room. As one participant put it later, “When Ross left the room, there was hell to pay!”
And there was hell to pay! For weeks! Even though the two groups met often, the meetings were not productive. They were full of accusations, recriminations, and power struggles, with each side blaming the other for refusing to give in. Little progress was made. Among the reasons for their continuing struggles was that they had been given a “solution,” not to a problem but to a mess! And for messes there are no solutions.
Now, picture a meeting room eight months later. All around the room are organizational charts, and team members are discussing the merits of one chart when compared to another. “There is a lot of give and take” writes Richard Pascale in his book Managing on the Edge. “Someone asks with an edge of frustration, ‘Which of these organizational charts is best?'” There is a long pause. No one speaks. Finally someone says, “Maybe this (i. e. the process we’re now engaged in) is?” The silence continues. People are suddenly seeing things differently, perhaps for the first time. “Then it dawns on us that the medium is the message. It was about how we were working together, not finding the perfect organizational structure,” remembered a member of the group.
When the team was able to move away from the organization “mess” of power, dominance, control, and status (Who was going to report to whom?) and toward their real problem – not spending quality time actually talking and sharing and working together – things begin to move in a positive direction. At last they had a problem they could agree on and do something about. “We took the next month,” reported a member, “to put together an organization that didn’t reorganize at all, but simply realigned the flow of communication across the chimneys.” And they made it work. They moved from the simplicity on this side of complexity – “Engineering will report to Manufacturing, problem solved!” – to the simplicity on the other side: “It doesn’t really matter who reports to whom; what we need to do is find ways to keep communication channels open and then communicate, communicate, communicate.”
Creating “Real” Problems
Our problems – gaps that exit between where we are and where we want to be – do not appear by themselves, by magic. They must be created by human beings who are involved in the situation, who care about it, and who want to see changes made. As Ian Mitroff warns us,“Real problem are not given to us. They must be extracted, often with much difficulty, from often messy and difficult situations.”
Here is how problems can be “extracted…from often messy and difficult situations:”
Embrace the Mess: Often, it is tempting to deny the existence or the importance of what is happening around us. In fact, there is a movement among some so-called experts and gurus to deny the existence of problems . “There are no problems,” says Wayne Dyer, “you only think there are.”
The alternative to denial, if movement in a positive direction is to be expected, is to Embrace the Mess. Speaking to leaders of organizations, Stanford professors Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton write in their book, Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense:
Leaders who want accomplish change reasonablyquickly [must] embrace the mess, do the best they
can with the knowledge and evidence at hand,
learn as they go, and take action…
Find a problem: After embracing the mess and agreeing that attention must be paid to it, the next step is that someone needs to get down in the middle of the mess, then “muck around” in it until he or she comes upon an aspect or element that is important, relevant, and can be shaped into the beginnings of a problem. “Extracting” a problem from a mess starts with finding something that seems to be important, then “pulling” it out of the mess (extracting it) and putting it on the table, so to speak. “Here is something important,” announces the problem finder. “It is something we need to go to work on.”
Own the New Problem: Once a potential problem is found, then someone needs to take ownership of it. It needs to become a high priority of someone: “This matters to me,” says the problem owner. “I am responsible for seeing that we do something about it!”
Name the Problem: Once a potential problem has been extracted from the mess, and an owner has stepped forward and taken responsibility for it, it needs to be named. What something is called matters. Without a name for the “problem-being-created,” it is difficult if not impossible to discuss it, let alone plan to do something about it.
Here is a an example from the business world: When someone says “Something is seriously wrong in marketing and we need to do something about it,” nothing much can be done. Not yet. If, however, he or she can say, “It’s clearly a problem of priorities. There is a serious gap in Marketing between what they are doing and what we think they should be doing.” Now there is a a situation that can be addressed. It has a name – Conflicting Priorities – and the beginnings of an understanding of the gap between Marketing’s idea of priorities and Management’s.
Define the Problem: The problem in Marketing has to do with priorities. Defining a problem means making the gap in perception between Marketing and Management clear, specific and actionable. An actionable problem is one for which both the future state and the present states are described – “Here is where we are, and here is where we want to be by next January 1.” It means setting goals that define the future.
Find the Obstacles: And finally, since the purpose of defining a problem is to find ways of moving from Here to There, the obstacles that stand in the way of reaching the future goal need to be discovered, identified, and plans made to address them.
There is even more to do before problems are fully “extracted” from the messes and actions can be planned and implemented. Among the most important is finding other people who have a stake in the issue or situation and getting them involved in the process. Additional steps to be taken in order to create actionable problems will be reviewed in future essays.
Getting to the Other Side
The complexity that stands in the way of getting to the Simplicity on the Other Side is made up of “messes.” Even if we dive into them and do our very best, until we have actionable problems to work on, very little will be accomplished. Over the last several decades a President of the United States has declared “war” on pornography, poverty, drug addiction and cancer. Hundreds of thousands of people were engaged, billions and billions of dollars were spent, endless arguments raged, then died, then raged again. And no victories have been declared. Nor will they ever be. Pornography, drug addiction, poverty, cancer, together with unclean air and water, lack of excellence in education, inadequate health care, and on and on, are not problems to be solved, but messes to be managed.
What the “extraction” of issues and situations from messes and then turning them into actionable problems allows us to do is to get into the middle of the complexities that stand in our way, and then, if we are skillful and persistent enough, to move beyond these complexities that bog us down and hold us up and get to the simplicities on the other side. Getting beyond the omnipresent “messes” and ending up with real problems that can be addressed productively – that is our Real Work.
Is the struggle to drill down into messes, then find and define problems, worth all the effort? In one sense everything depends upon it. “Success is relative,” wrote the poet T. S. Eliot. “It is what we can make of the messes we have made of things.” All of us want to be successful in our own way and with our own projects. How can we increase our chances? Eliot’s view, one that I share, is that it depends on what we can make of the messes that matter to us and that we find around us. Some of these we have made for ourselves, and others have been made for us. “Making something” of the messes we care about means first, embracing them, then “extracting” problems from within it, then going to work to make those problems actionable: owning, naming, defining, then finding and involving other people who can make their own contributions. This is what it means to get to the simplicity on the other side where so many rich possibilities for progress are to be found.