By Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Listen to this article:
Abstract: This article examines the potential downsides of leaders telling their teams "don't bring me problems, bring me solutions." Through a review of relevant literature and a case study, it explores how this common directive can undermine informed decision-making, stifle creativity, and lead to superficial solutions. By discouraging open identification and analysis of issues, leaders risk missing critical information and opportunities for innovation. Alternative approaches are proposed that balance problem-focused discussion with solution orientation, such as establishing structured forums for confidential problem-logging, promoting root cause analysis, and encouraging simultaneous exploration of challenges and remedies. Successful companies that apply leadership strategies welcoming problems are highlighted. The brief concludes that in complex environments, the most forward-thinking leaders appreciate the value that thorough problem diagnosis provides to fueling meaningful progress through practical, sustainable solutions.
It is not an uncommon phrase heard in corporate boardrooms and executive meetings around the world: "Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions." On the surface, it seems to encourage proactive, solution-oriented thinking from employees and convey that leadership wants action, not complaints. However, upon closer examination, this directive comes with some serious downsides that organizations should be aware of if optimal decision-making and innovation are true priorities.
Today we will explore the potential problems with saying "Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions" and offer alternative approaches leaders can take to build a stronger culture of progress.
Problems with the Directive
There are three main issues that arise when leaders tell their teams not to bring problems:
Lack of Critical Information
By discouraging the identification of problems, leadership runs the risk of not having all the necessary information to make fully informed decisions (Dombrowski et al., 2007). Identifying weaknesses, obstacles, and risks is just as important as proposing answers, as it allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the landscape. Without access to problems, leadership may develop solutions based on incomplete pictures or make assumptions that turn out to be incorrect.
Stifled Creativity and Innovation
Telling employees not to bring problems can negatively impact an organization's ability to foster creativity and innovation (Harari, 2019). Innovations often stem from identifying new problems or viewing existing problems in novel ways. By discouraging open discussion of problems, teams may feel constrained in diagnosing root issues from different perspectives or exploring entirely new problem definitions that could unlock creative routes to progress. Over-focusing on pre-cooked solutions limits opportunities for outside-the-box thinking.
Superficial or Impractical Solutions
When problems are downplayed or not properly defined, any proposed solutions run the risk of being superficial or impractical (Mainemelis, 2010). Employees may feel pressured to quickly propose answers without fully understanding the nuances of what they are trying to solve for. This can lead to solutions that do not address underlying challenges or that cannot realistically be implemented. Without a grounded understanding of problems, it is difficult to craft practical, sustainable solutions.
Alternative Approaches
Given these limitations, what can leaders do instead to empower progress while still avoiding being inundated with complaints? Some alternatives that allow for both problem-identification and solution-focus include:
Encourage "Problem-Solution" Thinking
Rather than an all-or-nothing directive, leaders can prompt simultaneous problem and solution exploration. For example, asking teams to both define key problems impeding progress clearly and concisely while also outlining high-level solutions they believe could overcome such problems (Mainemelis, 2010). This balances critical analysis with proactivity.
Establish "Parking Lot" Processes
Designating a structured forum, such as a periodic "parking lot" meeting, where personnel can confidentially log problems and concerns without implications. Leadership then reviews these issues methodically to ensure all input is assessed and addressed properly over time (Rafferty & Minbashian, 2019). This demonstrates that problems are taken seriously without disrupting daily operations.
Focus on Root Cause Analysis
Promote identifying the true underlying causes of problems, not just surface-level issues. Deeper diagnostic discussion aids in crafting solutions targeted at those driving forces rather than Band-Aid fixes (Dombrowski et al., 2007). This mindset shift refocuses teams on thoughtful problem-solving versus empty complaints.
The key is conveying that surfacing and defining problems is a valued part of the process so long as it is accompanied by, or even helps inform, constructive discussion around workable solutions. When implemented properly, these adjusted approaches can help leadership make optimal decisions while still motivating proactive initiative from their teams.
A Cautionary Tale: An Electronics Manufacturer Case Study
To illustrate how detrimental an emphasis only on solutions can be, consider the example of Westinghouse Electronics, a leading manufacturer of circuit boards and other electronic components in the 1990s. Under pressure from investors to aggressively cut costs, the new CEO mandated that all meetings be “solution-focused” with no time wasted on discussing challenges (Gino & Staats, 2015).
For a time, it seemed to be working – various process improvements were implemented and margins grew. However, lingering quality issues with a new product line began surfacing with some clients. Lower-level managers knew of supplier inconsistencies and equipment reliability problems for over a year but felt they could not bring these up without proposed answers. As a result, the true root causes were never uncovered or addressed.
Within two years, Westinghouse was facing costly recalls and losing major contracts. An independent review uncovered that leadership had been making decisions based on an incomplete picture due to the suppressed sharing of key problems (Gino & Staats, 2015). The CEO’s well-intentioned directive to focus on solutions backfired by preventing the timely diagnosis and remedy of critical issues that brought real financial consequences.
While Westinghouse eventually recovered, their experience serves as a cautionary tale of what can happen when the upfront identification and collaborative analysis of problems is not prioritized – even if solutions remain the goal. Cutting off this important line of input can undermine good decision-making and jeopardize business success in the long run.
Alternative Leadership Strategies in Action
To avoid similar pitfalls, some successful companies have adopted leadership strategies that achieve solution-driven cultures while still valuing problem-focused discussion. At Amazon, for example, the “two-pizza rule” for meetings encourages small cross-functional teams to regularly surface problems and brainstorm improvements together (Lafley & Charan, 2008). This grassroots approach aligns frontline personnel behind the goal of continuously enhancing all processes.
Similarly, at technology company Anthropic, the executive team holds regular “retrospective” sessions explicitly centered on critically examining what is and isn’t working well from different perspectives (Yang, 2021). They then facilitate collaborative discussions on adjustments that could resolve weaknesses or inconsistencies. By role-modeling openness to problems and emphasizing root cause analysis over surface fixes, leaders foster an environment where difficulties are viewed as opportunities rather than threats.
As these examples demonstrate, with the right emphasis and established forums, identifying and defining problems does not have to conflict with striving for solutions. It can in fact strengthen efforts to proactively overcome obstacles and further progress on an ongoing basis.
Conclusion
In today's fast-paced business environment characterized by rapid change and increased complexity, effective problem-solving has never been more important for organizational success. However, a singular focus only on hastily proposing answers runs the risk of missing vital insights and masking deeper issues – eventually undermining important decisions. While striving for solution-oriented cultures, modern leaders would be wise to avoid dismissing the value that identifying and thoroughly examining problems can provide.
Through establishing structures that encourage comprehensive issue diagnosis and welcoming problems alongside proposed remedies, leadership can empower personnel to engage in the thoughtful problem-finding that fuels true innovation. Saying “don’t bring me problems” may seem like a prompt for action, but it does little to build a culture where all viewpoints are welcomed and where root causes of challenges can be uncovered collaboratively. A balanced, process-focused approach holds more potential for crafting practical, sustainable solutions and maintaining a clear line of strategic input over time. In complex environments, the most forward-thinking leaders appreciate that you cannot have one without the other.
References
Dombrowski, C., Kim, J. Y., Desouza, K. C., Braganza, A., Papagari, S., Baloh, P., & Jha, S. (2007). Elements of innovative cultures. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(3), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.281
Gino, F., & Staats, B. (2015). Why organizations don’t learn. Harvard Business Review, 93(11), 26. https://hbr.org/2015/11/why-organizations-dont-learn
Harari, Y. N. (2019). 21 lessons for the 21st century. Jonathan Cape.
Lafley, A. G., & Charan, R. (2008). The game-changer: How you can drive revenue and profit growth with innovation. Crown Business.
Mainemelis, C. (2010). Stealing fire: Creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 558–578. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.4.zok558
Rafferty, A. E., & Minbashian, A. (2019). Cognitive redistribution: A framework for understanding confidence in leadership. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 565–585. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0185
Yang, C. (2021, March 25). How Anthropic creates a culture of learning and improvement. Anthropic. https://www.anthropic.com/ blog/how-anthropic-creates-a-culture-of-learning-and-improvement
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). The Downsides of "Don't Bring Me Problems, Bring Me Solutions": A Cautionary Note for Modern Leaders. Human Capital Leadership Review, 13(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.13.2.12
