Tips for Collaborative Problem Framing

Passionate problem solvers are easy to label as "too negative" or "having an agenda". Here's a good approach to bringing people on the journey: 1. Start with what you see and hear Describe specific behaviors, patterns, or outcomes as objectively as possible (knowing that we can never be truly objective). Be mindful of your potential biases. Are your emotions and perspective narrowing what you bring up? Avoid using loaded or triggering language. Keep it neutral and clear. 2. Invite others to share what they see and hear By starting with your own observations, you are setting an example for the rest of the team. Invite the team to share their perspectives and observations in ways that focus on understanding, rather than labeling or jumping to conclusions. In the right context, it might be better to start here. 3. Look inwards, observe, and listen Just as you describe outward behaviors, turn inward and notice how you feel about what you’re seeing and hearing. Instead of saying, “This place is a pressure cooker,” try, “I feel a lot of pressure.” Avoid jumping to conclusions or ascribing blame. Again, invite other people to do the same. 4. Spot areas to explore With observations and emotions on the table, identify areas worth examining. Avoid rushing to label them as problems or opportunities. Instead, frame them as questions or areas to look into. This keeps the tone open and focused on discovery. 5. Explore and go deeper As potential areas emerge, repeat the earlier steps: describe what you see, invite others to share, and observe how you feel. It is a recursive/iterative process—moving up and down levels of detail. 6. Look for alignment and patterns Notice where people are starting to align on what they’d like to see more—or less—of. Pay attention to areas where there’s consistent divergence—these are opportunities as well. Ask, “What might it take to narrow the divide?” 7. Frame clear opportunities Once patterns emerge, focus on turning them into clear opportunities. These are not solutions—they’re starting points for exploration. For example: “We could improve this handoff process” or “We’re not all on the same page about priorities.” Keep it actionable and forward-looking. 8. Brainstorm small experiments Use opportunities as a springboard to brainstorm simple, manageable experiments. Think of these as ways to test and learn, not perfect fixes. For example: “What if we tried a weekly check-in for this process?” Keep the ideas practical and easy to implement. 9. Stay grounded and flexible Be mindful of how the group is feeling and responding as you brainstorm. Are people rushing to solutions or becoming stuck? If so, take a step back and revisit earlier steps to re-center the group. 10. Step back. Let the group own it Once there’s momentum, step back and hand over ownership to the group. Avoid holding onto the issue as “your problem.” Trust the process you’ve built and the team’s ability to move things forward collectively.

The 2-second tweak to 𝗳𝗶𝘅 𝘁𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 (from “why” to “how”) Great leaders ask great questions. But even the best intentions can backfire when a simple “why” question triggers defensiveness instead of solutions. Chris Voss, the former FBI hostage negotiator, teaches us a powerful truth: “𝗵𝗼𝘄” 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 “𝘄𝗵𝘆” 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸. Asking “why” may sound innocent, but it often puts people on the defensive —especially in tough conversations. By flipping your “why” into a “how,” you create room for trust, problem-solving, and shared ownership. Here are 10 common “why” questions leaders should 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 “𝗵𝗼𝘄” 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: ----- Instead of: “Why isn’t this project done yet?” Ask: “How can we clear obstacles to move this project forward?” This shifts the focus from blame to solutions. ----- Instead of: “Why aren’t you motivated?” Ask: “How can I help you feel more engaged in your work?” Builds empathy and trust. ----- Instead of: “Why do you think this isn’t working?” Ask: “How can we adapt this approach to make it more effective?” Inspires creative thinking and collaboration. ----- Instead of: “Why did you choose that approach?” Ask: “How did you decide on this approach, and what are the key factors driving it?” This encourages explanation without putting the other person on the defensive. ----- Instead of: “Why didn’t you tell me sooner?” Ask: “How can we improve communication moving forward?” This opens the door for constructive feedback instead of defensiveness. ----- Instead of: “Why are team members disengaged?” Ask: “How can we create an environment where the team feels more connected and engaged?” This shifts the conversation to actionable steps rather than just diagnosing problems. ----- Instead of: “Why aren’t you hitting your targets?” Ask: “How can we work together to get you closer to your targets?” This communicates support and shared accountability. ----- Instead of: “Why is this taking so long?” Ask: “How can we work together to get this back on track?” “How” conveys partnership and reduces the pressure of feeling judged. ----- Instead of: “Why do we always run into this issue?” Ask: “How can we address the root cause of this problem?” Shifts from frustration to actionable problem-solving. ----- Instead of: “Why didn’t this go as planned?” Ask: “How can we adjust our process to prevent this in the future?” Encourages learning and improvement over assigning blame. ----- The key takeaway: Leadership conversations should empower, not interrogate. Reframing “why” as “how” changes the tone from critical to constructive, fostering trust and solutions. ---- 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Which reframing resonates with you most? Share your thoughts below ⤵ ---- ♻️ Repost and share these leadership tips ➕ Follow me, Ashley V., for more 📲 Book an anonymous coaching session

🧠 Most people rush to solutions. Einstein did the opposite. “If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions.” It’s a philosophy. Here’s the operating truth: ➡︎ Most failed solutions come from misdiagnosed problems. ➡︎ Most team drama comes from unspoken context. ➡︎ Most waste comes from reactive thinking, not flawed execution. The lesson? Slow down to speed up. Spend more time framing than fixing. Not endlessly. Not in a loop. But with the right tools: ↳ Force yourself to write the problem in one sentence ↳ Ask “Why is this happening?” five times (the 5 Whys method) ↳ Separate causes from effects ↳ Map constraints before options ↳ Invite diverse views on the problem before the solution In a world obsessed with hacks and shortcuts, you win by mastering the art of deep problem framing. Here’s what that looks like in practice: ↳ Ask “What’s really going on here?” five different ways. ↳ Don’t allow proposed solutions in the first 15 minutes of a meeting. ↳ Document every assumption you’re making, then test them one by one. We treat thinking like a luxury. It’s not. It’s the work when done right. ✅ Spend 80% of your energy understanding the problem ✅ Invite dissent, data, and depth before deciding ✅ Design solutions that match the real constraint ♻️Repost & follow John Brewton Brewton for content that helps. ✅ Do. Fail. Learn. Grow. Win. ✅ Repeat. Forever. ⸻ 📬Subscribe to Operating by John Brewton for deep dives on the history and future of operating companies (🔗in profile).

If a group of us gets together to work on something, we're in front of a shared Lucid Spark or whiteboard with everyone contributing. It's one of the healthiest habits that truly drive productivity that our teams have adopted. Topic range from: - Is this an opportunity worth pursuing or a perceived problem worth solving? (we call it Framing) - We think we want to go after this problem or opportunity. What options are available to us? (we call it Shaping) - Is this specific part of one of the identified solutions technically viable -or- is it acceptable from a business perspective (economics, acceptable to partners, clients, etc)? (we call it Spiking) During these meetings the group sticks together. Someone has an idea and the group works on it: pros, cons, trade-offs, supporting or dissenting data (quant+qual). This is in contrast to when the session is purely conversational and one person will surface their idea, the next person surfaces their idea, and the conversation goes in circles with each person working harder to defend their idea with nothing actually being recorded or explored. We also have a running joke for whenever a group of people are discussing one of these topics and it isn't unfolding concretely on a Lucid or whiteboard. When the meeting is over you'll hear, "well ... I can't wait to have that exact conversation again in a month!" Nothing has been recorded and no actual tradeoffs have been explored. Just a lot of people sharing opinions that will probably be different the next time the conversation happens. If you want to try this here are two great starting points. If you're figuring out if something is worth solving, start with the framing questions on the left and let the session unfold. If you're surfacing solutions, follow the shaping notes on the right. Let requirements evolve in a column and list potential solutions to the right to see how each possible solution addresses the growing list of requirements that develops. Don't let the conversation circle around. Be the one who says, "can we pull up a Lucid?"