Solution-Focused Problem Solving: Finding Exceptions That Work
by
David X. Swenson & David N. Anstett

Executive Overview

Reorganizational initiatives have required more people in organizations to participate actively in solving problems. The traditional past-oriented approach to problem solving can be limited in dealing effectively with recurrent, complex, or novel problems. A solution focused approach to problem solving identifies and utilizes constructive solutions already existing in a system on a small scale, and attempts to amplify and implement them on a wider scale. The process of asking solution focused questions is similar to the Kolb learning cycle and Deming PDCA cycle, and provides a structure for continual improvement in problem solving capability while avoiding the pitfalls of traditional thinking. In this article we contrast the assumptions underlying traditional problem-focused and solution-focused approaches, and outline a strategy for using four sequences of questions to identify leverage points for change.

The turbulent changes of the 90's has required problem solvers more than ever to rethink how they problem solve, and to discover new and more productive ways to approach recurrent, complex and novel problems. As Stoker reflects:

The past has often become more a distorting spectacle than a clarifying lens for viewing problems. During a paradigm shift one's past successes guarantee nothing about future performance, and a new paradigm may be more likely found in the exception to the rule than in using standard problem solving approaches.

Many times an intended solution is simply replaced with another problem, or worse, the solution becomes more of a problem than the original problem for which it was formulated. For example:

A major Minnesota steel company was enmired in labor-management conflict negotiation for years trying to outlive its past mistrust rather than identify what it needed to do to successfully compete against the newer minimills.

The railroads defined their strategic plans in terms of "rails" rather than transportation, and subsequently lost opportunity and market share to shipping, air carriers, and trucking.

A large human service organization spent nearly a year of weekly OD staff meetings trying to define its problems and issues so it could solve them. The efforts resulted in eliciting old unresolved conflicts thereby never letting them progress beyond those questions.

A college was looking for additional sources of funding in grants. By accepting several grants for one department, they effectively tied up the staff in meeting grant commitments so that they were unable to meet their regular job task requirements.

It is argued here that the traditional problem focused approach to problem solving be supplanted with an approach that avoids many of the traditional pitfalls. We will first define the limitations of the traditional approach, then present the assumptions and contingencies of a solution focused approach. Finally, similarities to the Kolb and Deming learning cycles, and question sequences for exploring problems from a solution focus will be discussed.

Limitations of the problem-focused approach

Using the traditional problem solving approach, the problem solver proceeds through these five basic steps:

Define the problem: What's wrong? Locate the source: How did it occur? Generate alternatives: How can we fix it?

Implement the solution: Fix it! Evaluate the fix: Did it work?

While this approach primarily works for superficial, short term, simple, and routine problems, the assumptions underlying it also impose some serious limitations and are quite different from solution-focused assumptions (see Table 1).

The tenuous problem-solution connection. The problem statement is often not directly or even necessarily related to the solution, and may redirect attention away from more productive discussion. For example, in one department a supervisor-supervisee conflict was initially defined as a "communication problem" and both were promptly sent to communication workshops to resolve the problem. After several such attempts did not work, a reexamination of the situation determined that the supervisee was seriously abusing alcohol which interfered with mood and performance, which led to a different set of actions. This is also an example where an attempt at problem solving created more problems than it solved.

Reinforcing the problem. Most problem statements are simply statements about what is wrong rather than what is right and working. Even when a problem statement defines the conditions that led to a problem, it is a focus on the past rather than the future conditions that should be attained. A problem focus risks getting bogged down in theory, explanation, and excuses: "why did it occur?" or "whose fault was it?" without getting to the solution. This can reinforce and can even elicit more of what is wrong rather than what is right. The frame restricts the solution. A problem statement is a double edged sword that at once clarifies a focus, and also cuts away other possible definitions. The frame used to define the problem is often not the one that will generate a useful solution, and it may actually prevent finding a useful one, especially with recurrent or persistent problems. For example, the nine-dot puzzle problem is a favorite of trainers, showing how assumptions about the nature of a problem can restrict seeing solutions. When a square shape is implied by the shape of the dot configuration, most problem solvers assume that the solution for connecting the nine dots with four straight lines lies within that implied square. It is only when they break out of that assumption that as many as eight other "non-square" innovative solutions can be found.

Complex problems require frame shifts. Many problems are very complex and have multiple variables and contingencies. Traditional problem analysis attempts to identify, isolate, and narrow focus on a single variable and cause, rather than look at the broader systemic factors and complex relationships. For example, in a small town, several administrators of a non-profit organization's fund development office were hired and fired within five years for inability to raise donations. It was only after the fourth firing that changing demographics were considered as a key factor rather than the personalities and competencies of the administrators: Many older contributors had died, leaving their inheritances to children who no longer lived in the community, did not value community involvement, or who had no relationship with the institution.

Resistance to change. From a systems perspective, every component of a system serves a function, particularly if it has been in operation for some time. Unfortunately, not all functions are useful; some may be redundant, work at cross purposes, or otherwise suboptimize the larger system. Attempting to remove the elements of a problem directly may elicit resistance due to stakeholders who have an investment in them.

Absence without solution. Traditional problem solving attempts to eliminate a problem. Therefore, many attempted solutions are limited to an absence of the problem rather than presence of the desired condition. For example, in production office setting several clerical staff had been engaged for months in low level but open conflict--harsh tones, sarcasm, and challenges. The office manager "solved" the problem by simply forbidding such behavior. This drove the conflict underground without solving it, resulting in two valued employees eventually leaving and requiring an expensive consultation to resolve the higher level conflict that later emerged.

Maintaining status quo. Many problem focused approaches attempt to "fit" the solution to the current status quo rather than generating a successful solution that may question or challenge the status quo. For example, leadership succession in organizations is often based on promoting from within, thereby rewarding loyalty and utilizing internal resources. However, in a turbulent environment where an organization should redefine itself, choosing a leader with whom everyone feels comfortable may only ensure maintaining the past, not transforming the way things are done.

Assumptions of solution-focused problem solving

Solution-focused problem solving, like many other innovative approaches in management, comes from interdisciplinary sources rather than traditional management theory. It is rooted in the systems theory of deShazer and associates who have effectively used it with individuals, couples, families, and staff to construct solutions.

Second-order change. A solution-focused approach is designed to be a "second-order" change rather than "first-order." A first-order change is an attempted change in which solutions are "more of the same" without changing the way the system works; they try to change the existing situation incrementally.. A second-order change is a shift or transformation in the structure or function of the system; the process is irreversible. For example, a marketing team for an innovative offender check-in kiosk for the corrections field could have spent many unproductive hours arguing about and trying to find the "cause" for a slump in a promotional campaign they had designed for probation and parole officers (first-order). Instead, they made a shift from promoting an emphasis on the uniqueness of their product, to learning what the officers wanted, and what made officers less fearful of an innovation (second-order). This completely changed the direction of the way they worked as a team, utilized outside resources, and their market strategy. Creative and more lasting solutions require a new frame quite different from the old--a paradigm shift from first to second order change.

Utilizing ongoing change. Solutions come, not from trying to overcome resistance to change, but by finding where the change is already occurring in the system, and utilizing and amplifying it. For example, many employees in several departments of a human service organization were disgruntled about vacation, training, and leave times being changed due to increased client needs--in all but one department. That department was asked how it was able to manage its release time so well. The director said that his staff kept a current database of all services and the results showed when there were peaks and valleys for service requests. The staff simply knew when these cycles occurred and planned release time accordingly. The other departments adopted a similar information-based decision with similar results.

Making distinctions. Effective and lasting change is based on noticing differences between ways of doing things, and continuing to do things that make a difference. A solution-focused approach continually asks for distinctions: What would an improved situation look like? What would be the just noticeable difference that would indicate a favorable change? What happened since the last meeting that indicated an improvement? How can these conditions be continued? Who can do what, when, and where to continue doing what makes a difference? These kinds of questions reorient problem solvers from a traditional focus to a solution oriented one.

Goal Well-Formedness. Solutions are not defined as the absence of problems, but by the presence of some specific desired condition. A well-formed goal is essential to an effective and productive solution focus. Without it, the problem solver may become overwhelmed with the complexity and size of the problem, get lost in its ambiguity, or not notice real progress. A goal should have some saliency to the client system, be specific and behavioral, indicate a begining of effort rather than an end, and be realistic within the given context. In addition, a goal should involve some hard work to make it earned and owned by people.

(Place Table 1 about here)

When to use a solution focus

Solution focused problem solving should be considered over a problem focused approach under the following circumstances:

High complexity. Complexity can refer to the number of problem elements, their interconnections, or the rate of change in elements or relationships. It is very difficult to use a traditional approach in which single problem definitions, simple causes and explanations based on past conditions do not adequately represent the current situation or the desired future condition.

Recurrent problems. Problems that recur are often indicative that first-order attempts at change are not successful. The constellation of factors that are driving the problem are unaffected or have not been addressed by the traditional approach.

Problem escalation. An apparent solution followed by even more complex, resistant, or serious problems can indicate a need to shift to a solution focus. This can signify that problem solving has been confined to a first-order change and that efforts and consequences are escalating, or that attempted solutions are creating even more problems.

Inaction. A stalemate can emerge when the problem solvers just can not seem to come to a definition, conclusion, or take action on the problem. This can be an indication that they are too tied to the past, their conceptual frameworks, or investments in the past state to change it.

Solution-focus as a reflective process.

The stages of asking for distinctions is very similar to the stages of the learning cycles proposed by Kolb and Deming (see Figure 1). Their cycles begin with concrete experience or "doing" followed by reflective observation of the behavior or "checking." This in turn is followed by abstract conceptualization or "acting" in which the reflections are generalized into concepts or principles. Then the active experimentation or "planning" stage attempts to translate the principles into new changes with which to experiment as the concrete experiencing stage is returned to. This recursive process is central to a solution focused approach in which a desired condition is identified, and a series of questions are asked to help make distinctions for continuing the change.

(Place Figure 1 about here) In Step 1, the awareness of the problem situation arises (concrete experiencing). During Step 2, the solution focused question asks for an exception to the situation, or "When don't you have that problem?" (reflective observation). During Step 3 the question becomes, "What's different about those times?" (abstract conceptualization). Step 4 translates the concept into the plan with, "What needs to happen for those to continue? (active experimentation). Finally, a return to Step 1 allows the improvement to be practiced and refined as the cycle continues.

Solution focused questions

The following four types of questions are actually different sequences of questioning that can be used, depending on the degree of reluctance of the respondent to explore solutions. For example, if the "exceptions" questioning sequence is unproductive, go on to the "miracle" questions. If these do not generate constructive direction, then explore with the "coping" questions, and finally use the "pessimistic" sequence with persistent reluctance.

Exception question sequence. These questions search for current exceptions to the problem's occurrence. By identifying when the problem does not happen, the conditions of that situation may be extended to other situations and thereby reduce problem occurrence even more. The idea here is to reduce problem occurrence by increasing solution occurrence conditions. 1. When don't you have that problem? 2. What's different about those times? What occurs instead? 3. How can that be made to occur more often? Who needs to do what? 4. How will you begin to notice that the problem is being solved? What will be different?

Miracle question sequence. This question sequence is often one of the most productive. It seems to establish a more relaxed and creative attitude and frees the problem solver from the constraints of the problem focus. 1. If a miracle occurred tonight, and when you woke up tomorrow the problem was solved, what would be the first just noticeable indication that things were different? 2. What will have to be different for that to begin happening? 3. When does that already happen, even if only a little? Who will have to do what to make that happen more? 4. What will be an indication to you and others that the problem is really solved?

Coping question sequence. When insufficient results are obtained from the exception or miracle questions, this sequence can be useful. Things can always be worse, and people may not appreciate constructive behaviors that are occurring during a problem or crisis. These questions identify important coping mechanisms that can be appreciated and amplified. 1. Why aren't things worse than they are? 2. What are people doing to prevent things from getting worse? 3. How are those things helpful? What else would be helpful? 4. What needs to happen for those things to continue?

Pessimistic question sequence. This tactic can be helpful during an initial meeting when the problem solvers are cynical or reluctant to consider potential solutions, or in later meetings when no change is reported. This series of questions should be used cautiously when the client system is in crisis, highly suggestible, passive, or dependent. Since gradual worsening of a situation is often tolerable to people, speculatively moving to an eventual outcome may increase motivation to change. The questions are designed to stimulate thinking by projecting ahead to an even worse situation unless something is done. They seek to explore the worsening condition to its extreme; how it affects the problem solvers and other stakeholders. 1. What do you think will happen if things don't get better? 2. What will happen after that? What next? Then what? 3. If the problem solvers start to become more optimistic (or at least dissatisfied with their negative premonitions), shift to the constructive question sequences above.

Conclusion

While the traditional problem-focused approach to problem solving may be useful with simple, time-limited, first-order problems, it can limit successful solution finding in situations that are more complex, have many contingencies or a longer time horizon, or require transformational change. A solution-focused approach avoids these pitfalls and emphasizes the use of questions that elicit exceptions to the problem, miraculous change indicators, effective coping strategies, or end-game motivators. These questions can help develop strategic leverage points in which already occurring solutions are amplified.

Table 1. Contrasting traditional problem-oriented and solution-oriented approaches

Traditional Problem-Oriented Focus Solution-Oriented Focus 1. Focus on current problems and past causes

2. The goal is the absence of problem

3. Attempts to remove problem elements

4. Focus on what's wrong

5. First order change

6. Overcome resistance

1. Focus on current successes and desired future conditions

2. The goal is the presence of certain desired conditions

3. Focus on solution replaces old problem focus.

4. Focus on what's right

5. Second order change

6. Utilizing and amplifying successes

Figure 1. Kolb and Deming learning cycles and solution-focused questions

Endnotes