problem solving capability in an organization

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

Why Problem-Solving Skills Are Essential for Leaders in Any Industry

• 17 Jan 2023

Any organization offering a product or service is in the business of solving problems.

Whether providing medical care to address health issues or quick convenience to those hungry for dinner, a business’s purpose is to satisfy customer needs .

In addition to solving customers’ problems, you’ll undoubtedly encounter challenges within your organization as it evolves to meet customer needs. You’re likely to experience growing pains in the form of missed targets, unattained goals, and team disagreements.

Yet, the ubiquity of problems doesn’t have to be discouraging; with the right frameworks and tools, you can build the skills to solve consumers' and your organization’s most challenging issues.

Here’s a primer on problem-solving in business, why it’s important, the skills you need, and how to build them.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Problem-Solving in Business?

Problem-solving is the process of systematically removing barriers that prevent you or others from reaching goals.

Your business removes obstacles in customers’ lives through its products or services, just as you can remove obstacles that keep your team from achieving business goals.

Design Thinking

Design thinking , as described by Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar in the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , is a human-centered , solutions-based approach to problem-solving and innovation. Originally created for product design, design thinking’s use case has evolved . It’s now used to solve internal business problems, too.

The design thinking process has four stages :

• Clarify: Clarify a problem through research and feedback from those impacted.
• Ideate: Armed with new insights, generate as many solutions as possible.
• Develop: Combine and cull your ideas into a short list of viable, feasible, and desirable options before building prototypes (if making physical products) and creating a plan of action (if solving an intangible problem).
• Implement: Execute the strongest idea, ensuring clear communication with all stakeholders about its potential value and deliberate reasoning.

Using this framework, you can generate innovative ideas that wouldn’t have surfaced otherwise.

Creative Problem-Solving

Another, less structured approach to challenges is creative problem-solving , which employs a series of exercises to explore open-ended solutions and develop new perspectives. This is especially useful when a problem’s root cause has yet to be defined.

You can use creative problem-solving tools in design thinking’s “ideate” stage, which include:

• Brainstorming: Instruct everyone to develop as many ideas as possible in an allotted time frame without passing judgment.
• Divergent thinking exercises: Rather than arriving at the same conclusion (convergent thinking), instruct everyone to come up with a unique idea for a given prompt (divergent thinking). This type of exercise helps avoid the tendency to agree with others’ ideas without considering alternatives.
• Alternate worlds: Ask your team to consider how various personas would manage the problem. For instance, how would a pilot approach it? What about a young child? What about a seasoned engineer?

It can be tempting to fall back on how problems have been solved before, especially if they worked well. However, if you’re striving for innovation, relying on existing systems can stunt your company’s growth.

Related: How to Be a More Creative Problem-Solver at Work: 8 Tips

Why Is Problem-Solving Important for Leaders?

While obstacles’ specifics vary between industries, strong problem-solving skills are crucial for leaders in any field.

Whether building a new product or dealing with internal issues, you’re bound to come up against challenges. Having frameworks and tools at your disposal when they arise can turn issues into opportunities.

As a leader, it’s rarely your responsibility to solve a problem single-handedly, so it’s crucial to know how to empower employees to work together to find the best solution.

Your job is to guide them through each step of the framework and set the parameters and prompts within which they can be creative. Then, you can develop a list of ideas together, test the best ones, and implement the chosen solution.

Related: 5 Design Thinking Skills for Business Professionals

4 Problem-Solving Skills All Leaders Need

1. problem framing.

One key skill for any leader is framing problems in a way that makes sense for their organization. Problem framing is defined in Design Thinking and Innovation as determining the scope, context, and perspective of the problem you’re trying to solve.

“Before you begin to generate solutions for your problem, you must always think hard about how you’re going to frame that problem,” Datar says in the course.

For instance, imagine you work for a company that sells children’s sneakers, and sales have plummeted. When framing the problem, consider:

• What is the children’s sneaker market like right now?
• Should we improve the quality of our sneakers?
• Should we assess all children’s footwear?
• Is this a marketing issue for children’s sneakers specifically?
• Is this a bigger issue that impacts how we should market or produce all footwear?

While there’s no one right way to frame a problem, how you do can impact the solutions you generate. It’s imperative to accurately frame problems to align with organizational priorities and ensure your team generates useful ideas for your firm.

To solve a problem, you need to empathize with those impacted by it. Empathy is the ability to understand others’ emotions and experiences. While many believe empathy is a fixed trait, it’s a skill you can strengthen through practice.

When confronted with a problem, consider whom it impacts. Returning to the children’s sneaker example, think of who’s affected:

• Your organization’s employees, because sales are down
• The customers who typically buy your sneakers
• The children who typically wear your sneakers

Empathy is required to get to the problem’s root and consider each group’s perspective. Assuming someone’s perspective often isn’t accurate, so the best way to get that information is by collecting user feedback.

For instance, if you asked customers who typically buy your children’s sneakers why they’ve stopped, they could say, “A new brand of children’s sneakers came onto the market that have soles with more traction. I want my child to be as safe as possible, so I bought those instead.”

When someone shares their feelings and experiences, you have an opportunity to empathize with them. This can yield solutions to their problem that directly address its root and shows you care. In this case, you may design a new line of children’s sneakers with extremely grippy soles for added safety, knowing that’s what your customers care most about.

Related: 3 Effective Methods for Assessing Customer Needs

3. Breaking Cognitive Fixedness

Cognitive fixedness is a state of mind in which you examine situations through the lens of past experiences. This locks you into one mindset rather than allowing you to consider alternative possibilities.

For instance, your cognitive fixedness may make you think rubber is the only material for sneaker treads. What else could you use? Is there a grippier alternative you haven’t considered?

Problem-solving is all about overcoming cognitive fixedness. You not only need to foster this skill in yourself but among your team.

4. Creating a Psychologically Safe Environment

As a leader, it’s your job to create an environment conducive to problem-solving. In a psychologically safe environment, all team members feel comfortable bringing ideas to the table, which are likely influenced by their personal opinions and experiences.

If employees are penalized for “bad” ideas or chastised for questioning long-held procedures and systems, innovation has no place to take root.

By employing the design thinking framework and creative problem-solving exercises, you can foster a setting in which your team feels comfortable sharing ideas and new, innovative solutions can grow.

How to Build Problem-Solving Skills

The most obvious answer to how to build your problem-solving skills is perhaps the most intimidating: You must practice.

Again and again, you’ll encounter challenges, use creative problem-solving tools and design thinking frameworks, and assess results to learn what to do differently next time.

While most of your practice will occur within your organization, you can learn in a lower-stakes setting by taking an online course, such as Design Thinking and Innovation . Datar guides you through each tool and framework, presenting real-world business examples to help you envision how you would approach the same types of problems in your organization.

Are you interested in uncovering innovative solutions for your organization’s business problems? Explore Design Thinking and Innovation —one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses —to learn how to leverage proven frameworks and tools to solve challenges. Not sure which course is right for you? Download our free flowchart .

About the Author

Special Speakers, Give Aways, Scholarships and more. Click to see the events line up

Six steps to effective problem solving within organizations.

• Dr. Nancy Zentis
• March 20, 2015

SHARE THIS POST

  Managers and their subordinates sometimes lack the problem-solving skills necessary to move things forward within their organizations. Luckily, OD process consulting focused towards problem solving training can be an effective antidote to this, as it helps in building critical skills to handle a possible deadlock.

Problem solving training is an intervention tool that helps managers and employees develop critical thinking skills to sharpen their logic, reasoning, and problem-defining capability. Problem solving training also helps develop abilities to evaluate causation, analyze alternatives, and select and execute solutions. This training is an integral part of organizational efforts to introducing quality management programs as it helps define a process to manage problems.

In this article, we will introduce the six-step problem solving process defined by Edgar Schein, so that teams trained in this can find the best solution to a problem and create an action plan.

Why Use a Problem Solving Process?

Since problems can be many and root causes hidden, it may take an extended period of time to come to a solution. Developing a team to help search for answers and formulating a decision is advantageous to improving organizational quality and efficiency.

OD Problem Solving Process based on Edgar H. Schein’s Approach

OD expert, Edgar Schein along with other OD experts suggested that a process that helps in problem-solving, steers groups to successful outcomes. Schein’s approach is presented in a model that investigates problem definition, brainstorming, group decision-making, idea development, action planning, and assessment.

As an OD consultant, you can use this process to improve communication,  strengthen group cohesion, and make effective decisions.

• Problem Definition .  Identify problems through  problem formulation and questioning. The key is asking the  right questions to discover root causes.
• Brainstorming .  During this process,  assumptions are uncovered  and underlying problems are further revealed. Also, this is an opportunity to collect and analyze data.
• Selection . Decisions are made within the group to  determine the appropriate solution and process  through creative selection .
• Development .  Once the group has formed solutions and alternatives to the problem(s), they need to explore the pros and cons of each option through  forecasting consequences .
• Action Planning . Develop an  action plan to implement and execute the solution process.
• Assessment . This final stage requires an  evaluation of the outcomes and results of the solution process. Ask questions such as: Did the option answer the questions we were working on? Did this process address the findings that came out of the assumptions?

​ This process makes group problem solving in projects and meetings agreeable, action-oriented, and productive. Without a process, it can become challenging for teams or groups to create the best solutions and establish a plan of action.

Do tell us about the problem solving methods you use within your organization. We would love to hear from you.

Reference: Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership, (Vol 2). John Wiley & Sons.

About the Author:  Valamere S. Mikler is the founder and principal consultant of V.S.M. Professional Services and Consulting, a consulting firm providing organizational efficiency and administrative office management services. She can be reached at  [email protected] .

Additional Information: The Institute of Organization Development offers certification in OD Process Consulting. You can become certified as an OD Process Consultant and play an important role as a partner to make the organization more effective and help to align organizational changes with the strategy, culture, structure, systems, skills, and people. To learn more or register, please check out our website: www. instituteod.com or email us at [email protected].

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Get updates and learn from the best, explore more articles and posts, certifications, educational resources, © 2021 institute of organization development, cancellation policy, privacy policy.

• What is Lean?
• Our Approach To Lean
• History & What We’ve Done
• Lean Research
• Lean Capability Development
• Login / Sign up

Sign up and join the community

Email address *

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please select all the ways you would like to hear from us Email

Your personal data will be used to support your experience throughout this website, to manage access to your account, and for other purposes described in our privacy policy .

Home > Developing Self-Reliant Problem Solving Capability

Developing Self-Reliant Problem Solving Capability

22nd February 2024 - David Brunt

In every organization, problems are an inevitable part of daily operations. Whether it’s a hiccup in the production line, a customer complaint, or an unexpected setback, problems arise constantly, demanding attention and resolution. However, how organizations approach and solve these problems can often make the difference between stagnation and growth. In this blog post, we’ll delve into the art and science of problem solving within organizations, exploring common issues and effective strategies for tackling challenges head-on by developing problem solving capability.

The Problem with Problem Solving

Before delving into solutions, let’s address some common issues that plague the problem-solving process in many organizations:

1. Focusing on Certification over Capability

Many organizations prioritize certifications and formal qualifications over actual problem-solving skills. This emphasis on credentials can lead to a workforce ill-equipped to tackle real-world challenges effectively.

2. Overreliance on Tools

Using the same problem-solving tool for every issue is akin to treating every problem as a nail because you only have a hammer. Organizations often fall into the trap of relying solely on one approach, such as A3, without considering whether it’s the most suitable for the problem at hand.

3. Failure to Address Root Causes

Merely containing problems without digging deeper to identify and address root causes is a recipe for recurring issues. Without addressing underlying issues, organizations find themselves grappling with the same problems repeatedly.

4. Neglecting PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act)

Jumping straight to solutions without following a structured problem-solving process like PDCA can lead to ineffective or short-term fixes. Without a systematic approach, organizations risk implementing solutions that fail to address the core issue.

5. Leadership Overload

When leaders attempt to solve every problem themselves, they become overwhelmed and unable to focus on coaching and developing their teams. This reactive approach results in leaders firefighting rather than empowering their teams to tackle challenges autonomously.

6. Lack of Skill and Time

Inadequate problem-solving skills coupled with time constraints can prolong the resolution process, leading to frustration and inefficiency. Understanding problem-solving theory is not enough; individuals must also be able to apply it effectively in real-world situations.

7. Failure to Capture and Visualize Problems

Without a mechanism for capturing and visualizing problems, organizations struggle to prioritize and address issues systematically. This lack of visibility can lead to problems slipping through the cracks and going unresolved.

Four Types of Problems

Not all problems are created equal, and organizations must tailor their approach to the specific type of problem at hand. Art Smalley’s framework categorizes problems into four types:

• Type 1 – Troubleshooting: Addressing unexpected or reactive problems.
• Type 2 – Gap from Standard: Dealing with deviations from established norms or standards.
• Type 3 – Target Condition: Pursuing proactive improvements toward predefined objectives.
• Type 4 – Open-Ended: Tackling complex or novel challenges that defy easy categorization.

Each problem type requires a different approach and level of analysis, from rapid problem solving for straightforward issues to practical problem solving for more complex and strategic challenges. Being aware of the differences enhances problem solving capability.

Problem Solving: Purpose, Process and People

At the heart of effective problem solving lies a clear understanding of its purpose and significance within the organization. Rather than viewing problems as obstacles to be avoided, organizations should recognize them as opportunities for growth and development. Taiichi Ohno’s famous quote, “Having no problems is the biggest problem of all,” underscores the importance of embracing challenges as catalysts for improvement.

By addressing problems systematically, organizations not only enhance their operational efficiency but also foster a culture of continuous learning and development. Moreover, problem solving serves as a vehicle for both organizational and individual growth, enabling employees to acquire new skills and competencies while driving business success.

Process: Key Elements of Problem Solving

Effective problem solving entails several key elements, including:

• Go and See: Proactively seeking out problems and gathering firsthand information to inform decision-making.
• Scientific Approach: Applying a structured and data-driven methodology, such as PDCA, to systematically address problems.
• PDCA Thinking: Embracing a mindset of continuous improvement and iteration to drive organizational learning.
• Ultimate Goal: Maintaining a clear focus on the desired outcomes and objectives of problem-solving efforts.

People: Roles and Responsibilities in Problem Solving

Effective lean problem solving is not solely the responsibility of a select few (that’s a key difference between lean and six sigma) but rather a collective effort that engages individuals at all levels of the organization. By fostering a culture of problem solving and empowerment, organizations can unlock the full potential of their workforce and drive sustainable improvement.

Leaders play a critical role in nurturing problem-solving capabilities throughout the organization, from frontline teams to top executives. By allocating time and resources to coaching and development, leaders can cultivate a cadre of skilled problem solvers capable of driving continuous improvement and innovation.

Rapid Problem Solving Method: A Closer Look

The rapid problem-solving method offers a structured approach to addressing challenges quickly and effectively. With its focus on concern, containment, cause, countermeasure, and check, this method provides a simple yet powerful framework for problem solving at all levels of the organization.

Each step of the rapid problem-solving method serves a specific purpose, from clarifying the problem to identifying root causes, developing countermeasures, and evaluating results. By following this systematic approach, organizations can streamline their problem-solving efforts and achieve sustainable improvements in performance and efficiency.

A Learning Journey: Mastering Problem Solving Skills

Mastering problem-solving skills requires a systematic and iterative approach to learning and development. Organizations can facilitate this process through structured training programs, hands-on exercises, and real-world problem-solving projects.

The RPS Capability Learning Journey developed with Hologic provides an illustration of an integrated approach to developing capability and self-reliance. The “Skill Level 1 – Knowledge” part of the learning process is conducted online using LEA’s Lean Learning Journey platform. “Skill Level 2 – Understanding” is a 4 hour session using a case. This can be carried out onsite or broken into 1 hour sessions online as the case is part of our online learning platform. “Skill Level 3 – Capable” uses remote group coaching sessions, working on real business problems. The process used is shown in the table below:

We shared the process during the Lean Global Connection event in November 2023. Here is a level 3 report out showing a real problem that was solved while teaching the RPS process.

Finally a co-hort of the people that progressed through levels 1 to 3 go on to develop the ability to teach and coach their colleagues. This results in the organisation developing self-reliance to use the process internally themselves.

By providing employees with the tools, resources, and support they need to excel in problem solving, organizations can foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation. From online courses to live coaching sessions and interactive workshops, there are myriad opportunities for individuals to enhance their problem-solving capabilities and drive organizational success.

Effective problem solving is not just a technical skill but a mindset and a culture that permeates every level of an organization. By adopting a structured approach to problem solving capability, nurturing problem-solving capabilities, and providing ongoing support and development, organizations can unlock new opportunities for growth, innovation, and success.

In today’s fast-paced and dynamic business environment, the ability to solve problems quickly and effectively is more critical than ever. By mastering the art and science of problem solving, organizations can navigate challenges with confidence and emerge stronger and more resilient than ever before.

You can learn how several organisations are developing problem solving capability at our UK Lean Summit in April.

• Construction
• Manufacturing
• Public Sector
• Retail & Hospitality
• Supply Chain
• Capability Development
• Lean Leadership
• Lean Principles
• Management System
• Process Improvement
• Product Development
• Tools & Techniques
• Transformation
• Demand Analysis
• Flow Costing
• Lean & Green
• lean certification
• Lean Digital
• lean learning
• Lean Summit
• Lean Thinking
• Lean Transformation Framework
• Managment Routines
• People Capability
• Problem Solving
• product development
• Purpose Process People
• Rapid Problem Solving
• Standardised Work
• Supply Chain Management
• Teach Poster
• Training Within Industry (TWI)
• UK Lean Summit
• Value Stream Analysis
• Value Stream Mapping (VSM)
• Value Streams
• Visual Management

The 6 challenges to successfully deploying problem solving capabilities

Find out how to create a culture of continuous improvement with successful problem-solving capabilities at every level of your organization.

In recent weeks, a number of people across my network have shared their aspirations to create a culture of continuous improvement; a key element of this is the successful deployment of problem-solving capability at each level of the organization.

Achieving this may not be as straightforward as one would expect. In this article, I will share some of the key challenges I have seen and some of the solutions available.

Don't miss any news, updates or insider tips from PEX Network by getting them delivered to your inbox. Sign up to our newsletter and join our community of experts. 

1. Cultural differences across the organization 

A key challenge to problem-solving is the transparency required in order to identify problems. Not every culture finds this comfortable. The key here is to ensure that senior leaders are supportive of the new problem-solving mentality and approach and that managers promote the right behaviors.

“For problem-solving to be successful, we must measure the right things, make them visual and act quickly. Senior Managers must promote the right behaviors to make this happen.”

2. Multiple geographical locations of individuals and teams 

It is now common to have teams split across various locations with little face-to-face interaction. This adds a layer of complexity when it comes to learning the problem-solving process both from a training and coaching perspective.

E-Learning is a great solution which can be accessed whenever required by an individual to learn the problem-solving methodology and the tools required from wherever they are. Following this initial learning course, a problem-solving workshop could be accessed remotely by multiple problem-solving team members across the organization using a video conferencing platform.

“Remote one-to-one coaching ideally would be given via video conferencing to support the ‘problem owners’ who would be learning by doing, completing a standardized problem-solving template as they progress.”

3. Having the time to solve problems 

Organizations often struggle with creating the headspace and time required to invest in problem-solving. It is rare that we plan dedicated improvement time for employees which means we need to take from our productive time. This means that there is a constant conflict between time to complete our core work, vs. time to solve existing problems and improve performance.

“If every employee had 1 hour per week dedicated to improvement, imagine the benefits that could be achieved.”

4. Different problem-solving methods used across the organization 

There are multiple methodologies available for problem-solving. In order for an organization to promote problem-solving effectively it is necessary to standardize the approach, the tools and techniques, the templates and the learning materials. This way everyone is able to speak the same language and collaborate efficiently.

“In order to solve problems efficiently, it is important to agree on one problem-solving methodology and on one standard set of terminology for the whole organization to use and understand.”

5. Differing levels of problem-solving maturity 

Problem-solving is one of the only improvement methodologies which is relevant to any department and any level of the organization. We do however need to tailor training materials for the learners to be able to relate the approach to their workplace.

“When learning the problem-solving methodology and tools, learners should be exposed to relevant case studies that will match their working environment.”

6. Lack of opportunity to apply recent problem-solving learning 

Delivering learning needs to be synched with the need for solving a business challenge so that the individual is enabled to practically use the new learning and develop competence. There are ways in which we can expose employees to the problem-solving process quickly and effectively as well as bring a group of employees together to solve problems.

E-learning for example is a great solution for just-in-time learning on problem-solving methodology and tool set. It can be accessed remotely as and when required. Video conferencing platforms can also be used for hosting problem-solving workshops to bring together a group of colleagues in a short timeframe.

“E-learning can be accessed just-in-time so individuals can learn the problem-solving process just before attending a workshop designed to help them solve a recently identified problem.”

More than ever problem-solving remains a key improvement tool which can enable huge performance improvement. Ideally, organizations will possess problem-solving capability at all levels and the methodology and tools will be used as the daily norm.

Whenever you are looking at deploying problem-solving capability within your organization, bear in mind that to be successful, you will need to ensure that your Senior Management Team promotes transparency and that the organization invests in the time required to solve problems at all levels of the hierarchy.

Standardization of the problem-solving methodologies used is another key element to consider as having multiple methodologies and terminology can confuse people when working together. Finally, do not underestimate the importance of just-in-time learning and of using the right technology to enable remote learning and collaboration between your different departments and geographical locations.

Find out more about Reinvigoration’s approach to problem-solving and how we can help you build your staff’s capability to solve problems and accelerate your journey towards the creation of a continuous improvement culture.

Embrace Change, Achieve Transformation

All Access: Change Management For Business Transformation will feature case studies from organizations that have successfully implemented change management to drive business growth. The content series will provide you with the knowledge, tools, and resources you need to successfully implement change management in your organization and achieve your business goals. Register now and get access to this free PEX Network webinar series.

FIND CONTENT BY TYPE

• White Papers
• Press Releases

Process Excellence Network COMMUNITY

• Advertise With Us
• What is Process Excellence
• User Agreement
• Cookie Policy
• PEX Network App
• All Access from PEX Network
• Become a Member Today
• Media Partners

ADVERTISE WITH US

Reach Process Excellence professionals through cost-effective marketing opportunities to deliver your message, position yourself as a thought leader, and introduce new products, techniques and strategies to the market.

JOIN THE Process Excellence Network COMMUNITY

Join Process Excellence Network today and interact with a vibrant network of professionals, keeping up to date with the industry by accessing our wealth of articles, videos, live conferences and more.

Process Excellence Network, a division of IQPC

Careers With IQPC | Contact Us | About Us | Cookie Policy

Become a Member today!

PLEASE ENTER YOUR EMAIL TO JOIN FOR FREE

Already an IQPC Community Member? Sign in Here or Forgot Password Sign up now and get FREE access to our extensive library of reports, infographics, whitepapers, webinars and online events from the world’s foremost thought leaders.

We respect your privacy, by clicking 'Subscribe' you will receive our e-newsletter, including information on Podcasts, Webinars, event discounts, online learning opportunities and agree to our User Agreement. You have the right to object. For further information on how we process and monitor your personal data click here . You can unsubscribe at any time.

• { document.getElementById('header-search').focus(); }, 300);"> Search

Search Search

Action Insights

Tackling Big, Thorny Problems: Building the Capabilities Your Organization Needs

• Authors Jorrit de Jong, Quinton Mayne, Fernando Fernandez-Monge

Last Updated Jan 22, 2024 Topic Strategic Leadership and Management Location Global

Bringing partners together around complex social issues and sustaining a joint effort demands capabilities that are often underdeveloped in public organizations. A study supported by the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative outlines how investing in collaborative, analytical, and reflective capabilities can help governments solve problems more effectively.

Read the Action Insights below, or download as a PDF for use later.

• Save and Share PDF

Government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic provide painful examples of how difficult it is for public organizations to tackle complex problems. Early reports point to organizational inertia, information hoarding, and a lack of leadership as some of the main causes for governments’ sluggish reactions and early missteps. A few countries, however, were able to mount an effective response. South Korea, for example, quickly “flattened the curve” of infections without shutting down the country.

According to a study , one reason South Korea was able to successfully manage the first COVID-19 outbreak was its prior investment in the capabilities to become a more effective problem-solver. After the 2015 MERS-CoV outbreak, the government created several task forces and cross-sector groups to carry out testing, drills, and joint response measures. The government also established a legal framework and infrastructure to streamline contact tracing and sharing patient data. It was this combination of convening the right partners, sharing the right data, and drawing the right lessons from the past that helped South Korea respond so effectively to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A more responsive government

For centuries, public organizations have been designed to perform specific functions: the tax office collects taxes; the police enforce laws; and public schools provide an education. But, as our societies evolve, new challenges emerge, requiring us to reinvent how governments function. For example, organized crime forces the police to work with the tax office (and many other public bodies) as well as the private sector, while racial disparities in educational outcomes for children require schools to look beyond the classroom for partnerships and solutions that support students as well as their families and community. And climate change , with the threats it poses to life on our planet, cuts across virtually every traditional divide within and between the public and private sectors.

While the kinds of problems we face change constantly, government structures and organizations were built to last. This relative inertia is by design: after all, governments are expected to provide stability and continuity. The question is, how can public officials get better at tackling problems without having to redesign their organizational charts for every new challenge?

Three core capabilities

In recent decades, academic scholarship has examined how the practice of “problem-oriented governance,”that is, governance that is more responsive to today’s most pressing problems, has emerged and evolved and how organizations have advanced this kind of work. However, existing research offers little guidance on how to build the necessary skills, knowledge, working practices, and behaviors—or what the necessary capabilities are—that enable and ensure that a government can mount a more tailored response to complicated problems and unpredicted crises. Our academic article, State Capabilities for Problem-Oriented Governance , aims to fill this gap. It provides three essential capabilities for any public organization to be more responsive to big, thorny problems:

1. Collaborative capability

Collaborative capability allows organizations to create and benefit from relationships within and across organizational boundaries. Getting the breadth and depth of these relationships right is key to integrating multiple perspectives and responding to the needs of different constituencies. It’s the ability to find the right partners and work well together.

2. Data-analytic capability

Data-analytic capability is the ability to collect, process, analyze, and ultimately learn from varied forms of information, including both the implicit and explicit knowledge that allows an organization to interact with others and engage the community most productively. It’s the ability to generate the right data and information and put them to use.

3. Reflective-improvement capability

Reflective-improvement capability is the ability to truly reflect on a problem’s complexity in order to generate a sound action plan and to continuously adapt the course of action based on what’s working and what’s being learned. It’s the ability to ask the right questions at the right time and take the answers to heart.

In practice, these capabilities are inter-related and work together, like the cogs of a machine, to propel effective problem solving. When they are “well-greased” and synchronized, they help an organization move faster and more efficiently. When one is weak, it erodes the contribution of the others. For example, an organization needs sufficient collaborative and data-analytic capabilities to integrate perspectives and information in order to reflect, learn from its actions, and adapt. Moreover, without collaborating and analyzing data well, the organization’s reflection process will be clouded, causing it to misjudge or miss opportunities to invest in collaboration and data analysis skills, severely hampering the organization’s performance in a vicious cycle.

Applying the framework to your organization

The above framework can help public managers think about how to be more intentional in designing and managing an effective way to problem solve that incorporates continuous learning and collaboration. Instead of solving problems through a siloed approach, put the problem front and center—whether it’s organized crime, educational outcomes, climate change, or another thorny problem. Then assess not only your current collaborative, data-analytical, and reflective-improvement capabilities, but also the capability gaps and areas of growth that are hindering your organization’s ability to make progress. Like our opening example of South Korea’s investment in a pandemic response, developing these three capabilities will undoubtedly pay dividends not only in the short-term, but into the future.

There’s no denying that new approaches to intractable problems can be difficult to implement. Still, in order to diagnose and remedy these problems, public organizations can avoid cramming a square peg into a round hole. Instead, they can routinely exercise their knack to adapt their working practices around the problems they are trying to tackle. Much like committing to a fitness routine, building the “muscles”and “connective tissue” to be able to function flexibly, reliably, and repeatedly, is what problem-oriented governance is all about.

  More Resources Like This

Operation Pufferfish: Building and Sustaining a Department of Neighborhoods and Citizen Engagement in Lansing, Michigan

Data and Evidence

“The Toughest Beat”: Investing in Employee Well-Being at the Denver Sheriff Department

Case Epilogue

More than a Contract: Black Self-Determination and People’s Assemblies in Jackson, Mississippi

Stay up to date on our latest work to improve cities.

Email Address Sign up

The Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative is located at the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard University.

The Lean Post / Articles / Building Capability, Transforming Organizations

Building Capability, Transforming Organizations

By Katie Anderson

August 14, 2014

How do we improve ourselves as coaches while developing the problem solving capabilities of others? Lean coach Katie Anderson suggests using a personal improvement A3.

Photo by Garret Hoover

At the 3rd Annual Lean Coaching Summit in Long Beach two weeks ago, more than 200 Lean practitioners gathered to share and learn about lean coaching as a theory and a practice. 

In his closing keynote, John Shook proposed that:

• The key to successful lean transformation is capability building.
• The core capability for building capabilities in organizations is coaching. 

He also said that Lean is both personal and organizational. Our broader goal in a lean transformation is to see a shift in the entire organization where everyone is a problem solver, but to do so requires each of us to personally change and continuously improve. If this is true, then as coaches and leaders, we need to keep an intentional focus on how we are developing as coaches.

Listening to one of John Shook’s first coaches, Professor Isao Yoshino, illuminated this point. This was the highlight of the Summit for me – the opportunity to hear a personal coaching story from John Shook and his “Sanderson.” (Yoshino is one of the two Japanese senseis who served as the basis for the coaching relationship Shook describes through his book,  Managing to Learn ).

Yoshino said he had two intentional goals when coaching John at Toyota and during the NUMMI years. His first goal was to develop John by giving him a mission or target and supporting him while John figured out how to reach the target. His second goal was to develop himself as a coach as he was coaching John. He knew John’s learning depended on the strength of his coaching.

How do we develop as coaches WHILE we are developing others? We might reword the description of lean leadership this way: A lean leader’s job is to develop people as you get the job done AND concurrently develop yourself so that you can better develop others.

One way to develop yourself as a coach is through intentional practice.  

At the Summit, Margie Hagene and I led a learning session focused on the story of our coaching relationship and how to develop one’s own coaching skills through A3 thinking. We shared a framework for lean coaching intentions, behaviors, and tools. 

Elements of the framework include:  

• Practice being “a little bit better every day.”
• Build in time and support the creation of conditions for repeatable and intentional practice.
• Learn by doing – you are a more effective coach when you have struggled with your own change.
• Practice PDCA on yourself. 

Developing a personal improvement A3 is one tool you can use to help you identify what gaps you need to close in yourself to better be able to coach while developing others.

I use the A3 thinking process to help clients articulate specific skills they want to work on and then to develop a plan for their own improvement. When I worked as the lean leader responsible for supporting the transformation at a large healthcare system, I used A3s frequently in my conversations with staff. I found that the A3 thinking process, including playing catchball as they worked to develop their own A3s, gave us a structured way to better understand and plan for their development needs. The process also helped staff become owners of their development plans and increased my clarity of how I, and others, could better support team members.  

It’s not easy to develop a personal A3, but the deep thinking and reflection it requires has focused and accelerated my own development as a coach. In so doing, it has enabled me to more effectively help others identify how they can improve as lean leaders and practitioners.

Elements of a Personal improvement A3: 

• BACKGROUND : Why should I improve myself as a coach/leader who creates an organization filled with problem solvers? Why this? Why now?
• CURRENT CONDITION : What are habits/actions I currently take (strengths and limitations)? What are the outcomes from these habits/actions?
• PROBLEM STATEMENT : (one concise sentence)
• GOALS/TARGETS : What is the new desired condition? What does good look like? How much? By when?
• ANALYSIS : What are the reasons for my current performance (strong habits and limiting habits)? Why is there a gap?
• PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURES : What experiments will I try on myself to become a better coach/leader of problem solvers?
• PLAN : What next steps will I take and when? What is my practice plan to develop new habits and close the gap?
• FOLLOW UP : How will I know there is improvement? How will I know if I’m off plan?  How will I make time to practice? What is my process for ongoing reflection and PDCA? Whom else will I involve? 

What are you doing as a coach to intentionally build your coaching capabilities so that you can build capability and support a successful lean transformation in your organization? 

Written by:

About Katie Anderson

An internationally recognized leadership and learning coach, consultant, and speaker, Katie is best known for inspiring individuals and organizations to lead with intention and increase their personal and professional impact. She’s passionate about helping people around the world learn to lead and lead to learn by connecting purpose, process, and practice…

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Building a Problem-Solving Culture: Insights from Barton Malow’s Lean University

Podcast by Matthew Savas

Developing 35,000 Problem Solvers: OhioHealth’s Journey in Lean Healthcare with Alli Kulp and Emily Swaney 

Podcast by Alli Kulp , Matthew Savas and Emily Swaney

Connecting the Classroom to Industry: Experiential Lean Learning with Dennis Wade and Lisa Eshbach

Podcast by Lisa Eshbach, PhD , Matthew Savas and Dennis Wade

Related books

A3 Getting Started Guide

by Lean Enterprise Institute

The Gold Mine (Audio CD)

by Freddy Ballé and Michael Ballé

Related events

June 10, 2024 | Coach-Led Online Course and Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan

Managing to Learn

November 12, 2024 | Coach-Led Online Course

Improvement Kata/Coaching Kata

Explore topics.

Privacy Overview

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, a problem-solving process for developing capabilities: the case of an established firm.

European Journal of Innovation Management

ISSN : 1460-1060

Article publication date: 20 September 2019

Issue publication date: 15 June 2020

Current research has theorized that developing dynamic capability can be viewed as a problem-finding and problem-solving process in terms of a firm’s resource reconfiguration. However, there continues to be a scarcity of empirical research on how firms and managers solve innovation problems to develop capabilities. Building on the theoretical lens of problem-solving perspective (PSP) and dynamic capability literature, the purpose of this paper is to address this gap by examining how a large automobile company developed different types of capabilities (combining capability, replacing capability and evolving capability) and their underlying problem-solving processes.

Design/methodology/approach

An inductive multi-case design was used to investigate the problem-solving process in different types of capability development in the context of NPD. This methodology has a number of benefits, including accommodation of the rich data used to compare the inferences among cases, thus enabling researchers to extend the emergent theory.

The findings of a multi-case study show that managers tend to direct their attentions to searching for solutions among external resources when the problem is framed as a combination of existing capabilities. Conversely, managers direct their attention to facilitating organizational learning when the problem is framed as an extension of an existing capability. However, managers need to direct more attention to gaining legitimacy when the problem is framed as a replacement of existing capabilities. The findings thus respond to increasing calls for more investigations into the microfoundations underlying firms’ capabilities, by revealing different instances of PSP, and their connections with different actions that take to capability development.

Originality/value

By comparatively examining the unique problem-solving process underlying an established firm’s innovative challenges in developing capabilities, the findings identify different instances of PSP, and their connections with different actions that take to capability development. Thus, the findings respond to increasing calls for more investigation into the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities for organizational outcomes. The findings also add to the new product development literature by examining how a product innovation can be framed differently depending on the attributes of an innovation problem. As PSP is particularly useful in offering guidance to firms’ innovative search, it is important for managers to pay attention to the attribute of each product and its domain of solution in considering the effectiveness of value creation.

• Dynamic capability
• New product development
• Problem solving

Shu, E.(E). (2020), "A problem-solving process for developing capabilities: the case of an established firm", European Journal of Innovation Management , Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 713-727. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2018-0262

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2019, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Capabilities Your Organization Needs to Sustain Innovation

• Linda A. Hill,
• Greg Brandeau,
• Emily Truelove,
• Kent Lineback

What sets companies like Pixar apart.

Why are some organizations able to innovate again and again while others hardly innovate at all?  How can hundreds of people at a company like Pixar Animation Studios , for example, work together to produce blockbuster after blockbuster over nearly two decades – a record no other filmmaker has ever come close to matching? What’s different about Pixar that enables it not only to achieve, but also to sustain innovation?

• Linda A. Hill is the Wallace Brett Donham Professor of Business Administration and faculty chair of the Leadership Initiativeat Harvard Business School, the author of Becoming a Manager , and a coauthor of Being the Boss and Collective Genius .
• GB Greg Brandeau is a former CTO at Pixar and Disney and now works with startups. He is a coauthor of Collective Genius: The Art and Practice of Leading Innovation (Harvard Business Review Press, 2014).
• ET Emily Truelove is a doctoral candidate at MIT and a coauthor of Collective Genius: The Art and Practice of Leading Innovation (Harvard Business Review Press, 2014).
• KL Kent Lineback spent many years as a manager and an executive in business and government. He is a coauthor of Collective Genius: The Art and Practice of Leading Innovation (Harvard Business Review Press, 2014).

Partner Center

Into all problem-solving, a little dissent must fall

Events of the past several years have reiterated for executives the importance of collaboration and of welcoming diverse perspectives when trying to solve complicated workplace problems. Companies weren’t fully prepared for the onset of a global pandemic, for instance, and all that it engendered—including supply chain snarls and the resulting Great Attrition  and shift to remote (and now hybrid) work, which required employers to fundamentally rethink their talent strategies . But in most cases leaders have been able to collaborate their way through the uncertainty, engage in rigorous debate and analyses about the best steps to take, and work with employees, suppliers, partners, and other critical stakeholders to react and, ultimately, recover.

And It’s not just COVID-19: many organisations have had to rethink their business strategies and practices in the wake of environmental concerns, the war in Ukraine, and social movements sparked by racial injustice, sexual misconduct, and widespread economic inequity . Ours are fast-moving, complex times, rich not just in worrisome challenges but also in exciting potential—organisations that enable innovation will find ample opportunities to thrive. So now more than ever, decision makers can’t act alone; they must bring diverse perspectives to the table and ensure that those voices are fully heard . 1 Sundiatu Dixon-Fyle, Kevin Dolan, Vivian Hunt, and Sara Prince, “ Diversity wins: How inclusion matters ,” McKinsey, May 19, 2020.

But while many leaders say they welcome dissent, their reactions often change when they actually get some. They may feel defensive. They may question their own judgment. They may resent having to take time to revisit the decision-making process. These are natural responses, of course; employees’ loyalty and affirmation are more reassuring to leaders than robust challenges from the group. There is discomfort, too, for potential dissenters; it is much safer to keep your thoughts to yourself and conform  than to risk expulsion from the group. 2 Derived from this work on the evolutionary origins of social and political behavior: Christopher Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior , Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2001.

What’s missing in many companies, in our experience, is the use of “contributory dissent” or the capabilities required to engage in healthy if divergent discussions about critical business problems. Contributory dissent allows individuals and groups to air their differences in a way that moves the discussion toward a positive outcome and doesn’t undermine leadership or group cohesion . 3 McKinsey itself has established obligation to dissent as one of its core values alongside those focused on client service and talent development. For more, see Bill Taylor, “True leaders believe dissent is an obligation,” Harvard Business Review , January 12, 2017.

McKinsey’s research and experience in the field point to several steps leaders can take to engage in healthy dissent and build a culture where constructive feedback is expected and where communication is forthright. These include modeling “open” behaviors, embedding psychological safety  and robust debate into decision-making processes, and equipping employees with the communication skills that will allow them to contribute dissenting opinions effectively.

In this article we outline the steps leaders can take to encourage healthy dissent, and the actions teams and individuals can take to share their voices and perspectives most effectively. It takes both sides, after all, to engage in robust debate, find the right solutions, and enable lasting, positive change.

How leaders can encourage contributory dissent

Senior leaders in an organisation play a central role in ensuring that individuals and teams see contributory dissent as a normal part of any discussion. They can signal the importance of dissent by taking a series of steps to institutionalise the practice within an organisation and empower employees to share their ideas freely and productively. Specifically, senior leaders should strive to inspire rather than direct employees to collaborate, explicitly demand dissent and, taking that one step further, actively engage with naysayers (see sidebar “How to encourage healthy dissent”). 4 Leaders can also draw on McKinsey’s “influence model” for changing mindsets and behaviors: role modeling, fostering understanding and conviction, reinforcing with formal mechanisms, and developing talent and skills. For more, see Tessa Basford and Bill Schaninger, “ The four building blocks of change ,” McKinsey Quarterly , April 11, 2016.

Inspire, don’t direct

How to encourage healthy dissent.

To encourage dissent through personal leadership:

Lead to inspire, not to direct:

• Empower the group to come up with ideas: “None of us knows the answer yet, but we can work it out together if we harness the best of everyone’s thinking.”

Foster dissent by actively seeking it:

• Explicitly seek dissent; give people permission and encouragement.
• Consider including dissent as a stated organisational value.
• Make provision for open discussion in the buildup to decisions.

Welcome open discussion when it comes:

• Listen to dissenters and naysayers, and thank them for their insights.
• Recognise this as a usefully unfiltered channel for understanding the organisation’s perceptions on issues.
• Seek to bring dissenters along the decision journey, so they become positive influencers later during implementation.
• Employ deliberate techniques such as red teaming and pre-mortems to widen the debate and mitigate groupthink.

As the inspirational speaker Simon Sinek put it, “The role of a leader is not to come up with all the great ideas. The role of a leader is to create an environment in which great ideas can happen.” 5 Simon Sinek, Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action , New York, NY: Portfolio, 2009. That is especially important for fostering an atmosphere of collaboration and contributory dissent. Rather than immediately jump into a discussion about solutions, one senior leader in an international organisation addressed his team’s anxiety in the wake of a crisis. “Let me guess,” he said, “you’re all feeling confused and uncertain about the way ahead. Terrific. I’m so glad we are of one mind and that we all understand our situation correctly! I’m sure that we can work it out together, but it’s going to require the best of everyone’s thinking. Let’s get started.” His authenticity and understated humor allowed him to connect with the group and inspired them to keep calm, carry on, and generate solutions that the leader alone couldn’t have come up with. Harvard professor Ron Heifetz describes this as creating a holding environment, a key element of adaptive leadership. 6 Ronald A. Heifetz and Mary Linksy, Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive through the Dangers of Leading , Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2002; Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linksy, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World , Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2009.

Explicitly demand dissent

It’s not enough for leaders to give people permission to dissent; they must demand it of people. In many companies, individuals and teams may (understandably) default to collegiality, not realizing that there are ways to challenge ideas while still respecting colleagues’ roles and intellect. It’s on senior leaders, then, to help employees understand where the boundaries are. In World War 1, Australia’s General Sir John Monash was determined to develop better tactics to overcome the catastrophic impasse of trench warfare. He knew there were answers to be found from the experience of soldiers in the trenches, but he needed to loosen the military discipline of blind obedience: “I don’t care a damn for your loyal service when you think I am right; when I really want it most is when you think I am wrong.” Monash scheduled open battle planning sessions and pulled in advice from whoever offered it. In doing so, he built ownership of and confidence in his plans among all ranks. The resulting orchestration of tanks, artillery, aircraft, and troops led to rapid advances along the Somme Valley, and Monash garnered respect and appreciation from his troops, whose chances of survival and ultimate victory had increased markedly.

Actively engage with naysayers

Taking the demand imperative one step further, it’s beneficial for leaders to actively seek out the views of vocal naysayers , who can turn into influential champions just by being part of the conversation. They can immediately improve the nature of business debate and may boost the quality of the final decision, although engaging with naysayers can be tough. Some dissenting opinions can be ill-informed or uncomfortable to hear. The objective for senior leaders, then, is to put their discomfort aside and listen for signs of cognitive dissonance within an organisation. As an example, front-line employees may say things like “We’re not considered strategic thinkers,” or “The company doesn’t put people first,” while senior management may actually feel as though they have made strides in both of those areas. Still, leaders need to absorb such comments, treat them as useful data points, assess their validity, and engage in what may be a challenging discussion. They may want to use red teams  and premortems , in which teams at the outset anticipate all the ways a project could fail, to frame up dissenting opinions, mitigate groupthink, and find a positive resolution. These behaviours also serve to enhance organizational agility and resilience .

How leaders can establish psychological safety

Senior leaders need to establish a work environment in which it is safe to offer dissenting views. The McKinsey Health Institute’s work on employee well-being points to a strong correlation between leadership behaviors, collaborative culture, and resistance to mental health problems and burnout : only 15 percent of employees in environments with low inclusivity and low support for personal growth are highly engaged, compared with 38 percent in high-scoring environments. 7 “ Addressing employee burnout: Are you solving the right problem? ,” McKinsey, May 27, 2022. Leaders can build psychological safety (where team members feel they can take interpersonal risks and remain respected and accepted) and set the conditions for contributory dissent by rethinking how they engage in debate—both the dynamics and the choreography of it.

The dynamics of debate

The poet and playwright Oscar Wilde described a healthy debating culture as one in which people are “playing gracefully with ideas”— listening to, and even nourishing, opposing points of view in a measured and respectful way. 8 The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde, Volume 2: De Profundis, “Epistola: In Carcere et Vinculis,” Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press, 2005. Indeed, the best ideas can emerge at the intersection of cultures and opinions. In 15th century Florence, for instance, the Medici family attracted and funded creators from across the arts and sciences to establish an epicenter of innovative thinking that sparked the Renaissance. 9 Frans Johansson, The Medici Effect: Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas, Concepts, and Culture , Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2004. Closer to this century, we have seen cross-discipline innovations like the application of biologists’ research on ant colonies to solve problems in telecommunications routing. And in the business world, extraordinary innovations have been achieved by open-minded leaders bringing together smart people and creating the conditions for playful exploration.

To achieve a state of “graceful play,” senior leaders must carefully manage group dynamics during debates. Rather than lead with their own opinions, for instance, which might immediately carry outsize weight in the group and stifle discussion, senior leaders can hold back and let others lead the discussion . They can lean in to show genuine curiosity or to explicitly recognise when a dissenting view has changed their thinking. But by letting other, more junior voices carry the agenda and work through ideas, however imperfect, senior leaders can establish a climate of psychological safety—and garner more respect from colleagues long term. 10 Amy C. Edmondson, The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth , Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

Leaders will also need to be aware of cultural differences that may crop up during debates. For example, many Australians speak candidly and are happy to address issues squarely. By contrast, the concept of “face” is so important in many Asian cultures that a more circumspect approach is taken. And the Pacific and Maori cultures emphasize displays of both strength and respect. 11 Erin Meyer, The Culture Map: Breaking through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business , Philadelphia, PA: PublicAffairs, 2014. These differences in debate dynamics really matter. They can be a great source of hybrid vigour, 12 “Heterosis, also called hybrid vigour: the increase in such characteristics as size, growth rate, fertility, and yield of a hybrid organism over those of its parents. The first-generation offspring generally show, in greater measure, the desired characteristics of both parents.” Encyclopedia Britannica , accessed September 19, 2022. if sensitively managed, or a source of conflict and disenfranchisement if not. To approach these differences in a positive way, senior leaders could undertake a mapping exercise that identifies the different styles of the cultures present, thereby providing validation and enabling pragmatic measures to integrate them.

Choreographing debate

Beyond just managing debate dynamics, business leaders must take a hand in choreographing the debate and, specifically, in helping to design collective-thinking processes  so people know how best to play their part. Business leaders may adopt a structured approach  to brainstorming, for instance, or plan strategic off-site schedules that combine deliberate thinking with “distracted” thinking—taking time to engage in a social activity, for instance—to take advantage of employees’ deep-thinking processes.

How deliberate choices by the leader can optimise a decision-making process

A leader must consciously assess each new situation and design the collective-thinking process accordingly, then articulate this so that people know how best to play their part.

In doing so, the leader should consider an array of questions, the answers to which will determine the context, for example:

• What does success look like?
• Will the organisation underwrite initial failures in the interests of agility and innovation?
• How broad and freethinking an analysis is required?
• What are the explicit expectations for contributory dissent?
• Are any topics and behaviours out of bounds?
• Who will lead the discussion, and how will comments be captured?
• Does urgency mean that it’s better to be directive?
• Who will be consulted?
• Which decisions can be delegated, and to whom?
• Whose support needs to be built?
• What parameters and boundaries exist?
• Are there interim decisions and communications required?
• What form should the deliverable outcomes take?
• When are the deliverables required?
• Direction setting on these parameters by the leader focuses the team, while also creating space for creativity and iterative learning.

To create a sustainable structure for debate, business leaders will need to consider questions relating to team structure and rules of engagement: What does success look like when it comes to contributory dissent? What topics and behaviors are out of bounds? Who will lead the discussion, and how will comments be captured? Who has the final say on decisions, or which decisions can be delegated, and to whom? (For a more comprehensive explanation, see sidebar “How deliberate choices by the leader can optimise a decision-making process.”)

Having these parameters in place can free up the team to think more creatively about the issue at hand. Establishing such protocols can also make it easier to raise dissenting opinions. At one company, people are asked to call out their underlying values or potential biases when expressing a dissenting view. During meetings of the promotion committee, for instance, a statement like “I think we are making the wrong decision” would be rephrased as “I am someone who values experience over collaboration, and this decision would risk losing too much institutional knowledge.”

How individuals and teams can engage and dissent

As we’ve shared, senior leaders can take steps to set conditions for robust discussion and problem-solving, but individuals and teams themselves must also have the right mindsets and skills for contributory dissent to work well (see sidebar “How teams and individuals can dissent effectively”). In particular, they must embrace the obligation to dissent, actively make space to analyse ideas that are different from their own, and then find ways to either iterate on others’ ideas or respectfully agree to disagree.

Embrace the obligation to dissent

How teams and individuals can dissent effectively.

For dissent to be effective, its delivery requires courage and tactical skills underpinned by sincere respect and grace. Speaking up with respect is the right thing to do, and the responsibility to do so exists, even if there is uncertainty. The following guidelines are useful in enabling effective dissent:

Prepare a welcome for dissenting views:

• Understand the context and motivations of others, appreciate their views, and syndicate your own.
• Stop and strategise before wading into the conversations, establish a solid platform for agreement, and explicitly seek permission to dissent.

Play the long game:

• Be open minded and iterative. Don’t expect to succeed on the first try.
• Listen to others for what their views might add rather than to defend your own.

Withhold assent if you need to, but do it carefully:

• Withholding assent is a legitimate option if done judiciously.
• Minimise offense to and loss of face for the decision maker.
• If principles or legality is at stake, document your dissent.

Individuals and teams need to exhibit a certain amount of humility and confidence in order to speak truth to power with respect; they must be sure for themselves that doing so is the right thing to do. To build this confidence, individuals and teams should remember that the very act of dissent can be valuable, even if the contribution itself isn’t 100 percent baked. Others can react or build on the dissenting view—which, in itself, can be a satisfying process for a dissenter. If the ultimate decision isn’t what they proposed, they still helped shape it by offering and testing a worthy possibility.

Make space to analyse different views

Individuals and teams may need time to determine their positions on an issue. During this period, it’s important to be (and seen to be) open-minded and respectful of others’ views. That means asking lots of questions, gathering information, assessing others’ motivations, and acknowledging their views before syndicating alternatives of your own. Much of this fact gathering can be done one-on-one, in a nonconfrontational way, in offline conversations rather than in a tension-filled meeting room. In these conversations, individuals could start by reaffirming a shared commitment to finding a solution to the issue at hand, their respect for the decision-making process and the group, and areas of broad agreement. They could also signal their possible intention to dissent and seek permission to do so rather than confronting people head-on. People will find it harder to refuse that permission, and will be less likely to get defensive, when approached with statements like “This is a great discussion, and I love the vision of where we are headed, but would it be OK for us to explore some alternatives for how to get there?”

Agree to iterate …

Individuals and teams that decide to offer dissenting views should agree to iterate on other solutions, rather than digging in. Their dissenting opinions should be cogent, persuasive, and open-minded—but dissenters shouldn’t expect to change hearts and minds on the first try. They should plant seeds gently and bide their time; they might even see their idea come back as someone else’s. The critical skill required here is active, open listening: dissenters should listen carefully for others’ additive insights and find ways to build on them. In their contributory dissent, individuals and teams can take a moment to summarize what others have said and then use statements like “Can I offer another take?” and then allow the momentum of the conversation to take over.

… or agree to disagree

But what happens if, after all the considered and tactful input, the dissenter still believes a decision is heading in the wrong direction? In our experience, withholding assent then becomes a legitimate option: people shouldn’t agree if they don’t agree. This is where all the careful, respectful groundwork the dissenter has done can pay dividends. In fact, a dissenting view gains even more power when an individual can say something like, “I still believe in my alternate solution, but I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this process, and I respect that you have the final say.” In this case, the dissenter is supporting the leader while flagging that the open debate hasn’t convinced them to change their initial view.

Of course, withholding assent should be a relatively rare action, taken only after an individual or team has shown that they can accommodate other views and have aligned with the consensus when they believe it’s right to do so. Think of US Supreme Court associate justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who joined the consensus view on many decisions but who is especially celebrated for the positive changes that arose from her highly influential dissenting opinions on issues such as gender equity, human rights, and religious freedom.

Contributory dissent can help strengthen employee engagement, unlock hidden insights, and help organisations solve tough challenges. But putting it into practice takes courage and humility, and it won’t just happen by accident. Leaders need to be intentional about welcoming challenges to their plans and opinions, even when it’s uncomfortable to do so. They need to establish cultures and structures where respectful debate can occur and where individuals and teams feel free to bring innovative—and often better—alternative solutions to the table.

Ben Fletcher is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Sydney office, Chris Hartley is a partner in the Melbourne office, Rupe Hoskin is a senior expert in the Canberra office, and Dana Maor is a senior partner in the Tel Aviv office.

The authors wish to thank Jacqueline Brassey, Nikki Dines, Richard Fitzgerald, Sam Hemphill, Ayush Jain, Jemma King, and Martin Nimmo for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Psychological safety and the critical role of leadership development

How to demonstrate calm and optimism in a crisis

The four building blocks of change