Conventional action planning makes the problem the priority. According to this logic, we need to put the problem first in order to get beyond it. 

After we diagnose the problem, then we can know our real options. And then we can decide on the correct solution and the way forward. And then, we can move into action.

Anything else sounds wildly irresponsible.

We devote time and effort to describe the problem in great detail. This is problem-first thinking.

The problem with problem-first thinking is that we give the problem all of our precious cognitive energy (defining, analyzing, mapping our options). 

And this leaves us with a deep description of *exactly* what we do not want. We take on the problem point of view.

It gets worse. Then from inside this detailed problem description, we try to generate a decision tree of options to move forward. 

It gets worse. Then within these limits, we generate either/or options. Forced choices that are the gateway to our next step. They sound like: 

“I can do this or that.

If I do this, then I will be able to do this or that.

But if I do that, then I can only do this or that.”

Sound familiar?

I co-founded a game-based learning lab at a business school leadership centre with some intrepid colleagues. We built choice-based serious games for ethical decision-making based on this kind of branching decision method.

We pulled ethical challenges from research and conducted our own interviews using critical incident technique to generate content.

I also built *facilitation-focused* collaborative games to generate both branching maps and situational analysis of factors that people considered important in ethical decision-making in the workplace.

What I discovered is that the AHA moments in the room were often times when people saw that their best option was a fair workaround to an unfair forced choice.

That’s when their ingenuity came out.

It was typically framed around what was at stake for them in their own personal long game, successful examples they had seen before, and their own past success in the middle of impossible challenges.

People would start to challenge the way the challenge was set up in the first place. They wouldn’t simply accept the either/or options set by the initial problem space. 

This was the same problem space *we* created for them, based on real cases and conventional decision-making and action planning procedures.

As a facilitator I was there to ask: “What else would need to be true about the world in order for this to work the way you think it’s going to work? What else?”

Those conversations became exercises in realistic optimism.

In my view, the value of all the branching narrative games we created was *always* in the facilitated discussion, not the serious game itself.

When we dive in and describe a problem first, we automatically give the problem the upper hand. We play the problem’s game, not our own.

We forget to do a deep dive into our own resourcefulness in the face of challenge and the ways we have generated ingenious solutions before. 

We let the problem set the agenda for what we need to consider and prioritize. We think inside the problem not beyond it. And typically we make an action plan based on what the problem tells us is possible. 

Getting clear and correct on the problem and its source (‘the root cause‘) is a highly valued skill in analytical critical thinking. I trained folks in this kind of logic for years in university classrooms. It’s a beneficial troubleshooting method to learn.

For some challenges, this is *not* the method we need. In these cases, we need a reliable, repeatable method to help us think beyond the problem as our first step.

Luckily, there are other ways to responsibly frame and tackle a challenge.

Problem-first thinking is optional.

A Solutions Session is one way to shake it off.