Blog
The Real Problem with Problem-Solving Training: Why Your Team Still Can't Think Their Way Out of a Paper Bag
Related Reading:
Three months ago, I watched a senior manager spend forty-five minutes trying to figure out why the office printer wasn't working. The solution? It wasn't plugged in. This same person had just completed a $3,000 problem-solving workshop the week before.
That's when it hit me. We're teaching problem-solving all wrong.
After fifteen years running workplace training programmes across Melbourne, Brisbane, and Perth, I've seen enough creative problem solving workshops to know that most of them miss the point entirely. We're so busy teaching frameworks and methodologies that we forget the most important skill: actually looking at what's right in front of you.
The Framework Fallacy
Everyone loves a good framework. Seven steps to this, five stages of that. I've taught them myself—the classic problem-solving cycle, root cause analysis, the whole lot. But here's what I've noticed: people who rely too heavily on frameworks often can't solve simple problems without them.
Real problem-solving isn't about following steps. It's about developing what I call "practical curiosity"—the willingness to poke around, ask dumb questions, and actually observe what's happening instead of what you think should be happening.
Last year, I worked with a logistics company in Sydney where packages kept going missing. Management had implemented a sophisticated tracking system, conducted multiple training sessions on problem-solving methodologies, and held endless meetings about "root cause analysis."
The solution? A new temp worker was putting packages in the wrong bay because the signage was faded and nobody thought to mention it during orientation.
Simple observation. No framework required.
Why Creative Problem-Solving Courses Miss the Mark
Don't get me wrong—creativity in problem-solving matters enormously. But most creative problem-solving training focuses on brainstorming techniques and lateral thinking exercises that feel completely disconnected from real workplace challenges.
I remember one session where we spent two hours using the "six thinking hats" method to solve the challenge of "How might we improve customer satisfaction?" By the end, we had forty-three sticky notes full of brilliant ideas and zero practical next steps.
Meanwhile, the real customer satisfaction problem was that the phone system kept dropping calls because nobody had updated the software in three years.
Creative problem-solving works best when it's grounded in reality, not floating around in brainstorming heaven. The most effective sessions I've run combine creativity with practical constraints. Give people a real problem, a limited budget, and a deadline. That's when the magic happens.
The Pattern Recognition Revolution
Here's something they don't teach in most problem-solving courses: the best problem-solvers aren't necessarily the most logical or creative people. They're the ones who've seen enough problems to recognise patterns.
I once worked with a maintenance supervisor who could diagnose equipment failures faster than engineers with twice his education. His secret? Twenty years of watching machines break down in predictable ways. He'd developed an intuitive understanding of cause and effect that no training manual could teach.
This is why I'm increasingly sceptical of generic problem-solving training. The skills that matter most are context-specific. A software developer's problem-solving approach differs dramatically from a retail manager's, which differs from a tradesperson's.
Yet we keep trying to teach universal problem-solving skills as if all problems are created equal. They're not.
The Observation Deficit
The biggest gap I see in workplace problem-solving isn't analytical thinking or creativity—it's basic observation skills. People jump to solutions before they've properly understood the problem.
I blame PowerPoint culture for this. We're so used to presenting neat solutions that we've forgotten how to sit with messy, unclear problems long enough to understand them properly.
The best problem-solvers I know are comfortable with not knowing. They ask questions like "What am I not seeing?" and "What assumptions am I making?" instead of rushing to implement the first solution that sounds reasonable.
This drives managers crazy because it looks like indecision. But there's a huge difference between productive uncertainty and paralysis by analysis. Good problem-solvers know when they need more information and when they need to act.
Teaching Problem-Solving That Actually Works
So what does effective problem-solving training look like? Based on my experience, it needs three elements that most programmes ignore:
Real problems with real consequences. Stop using hypothetical scenarios about deserted islands or fictional companies. Use actual problems from participants' workplaces. Yes, it's messier and harder to facilitate, but it's infinitely more valuable.
Time pressure and resource constraints. Academic problem-solving has the luxury of unlimited time and perfect information. Workplace problem-solving doesn't. Training needs to reflect this reality.
Cross-functional exposure. The best problem-solvers understand how different parts of an organisation work. They know who to ask, what questions to ask, and how different departments think about problems.
The Technology Trap
Here's a controversial opinion: technology is making us worse at problem-solving, not better.
I see teams reaching for complex software solutions when a simple process change would work better. Or spending weeks building elaborate spreadsheets when a phone call would solve the problem immediately.
Don't misunderstand me—I'm not anti-technology. But I am concerned about the tendency to assume that every problem needs a technological solution. Sometimes the best solution is decidedly low-tech.
A manufacturing client was struggling with production delays. They'd invested heavily in workflow management software and automated tracking systems. The real issue? Workers were taking longer breaks because the break room was uncomfortable and poorly ventilated. A few fans and some comfortable furniture solved the problem for less than $500.
Why Small Problems Matter
Most problem-solving training focuses on big, strategic challenges. But I've found that teams who can't solve small problems efficiently will struggle with big ones too.
Small problems are like practice scales for musicians. They help you develop the fundamental skills you'll need for more complex challenges: observation, questioning, testing assumptions, iterating quickly.
Plus, small problems compound. A team that consistently solves minor issues before they become major ones will always outperform a team that's constantly firefighting.
The Collaboration Component
Individual problem-solving skills matter, but most workplace problems require collective solutions. Yet most training treats problem-solving as an individual competency.
The most effective problem-solving teams I've worked with have developed shared languages and approaches. They know how to build on each other's ideas instead of competing for the best solution. They're comfortable with productive disagreement and can change direction quickly when new information emerges.
This requires a different kind of training—one that focuses on group dynamics and communication as much as analytical thinking.
Beyond the Training Room
Here's the uncomfortable truth: you can't train your way out of poor problem-solving culture. If your organisation punishes people for admitting mistakes, rewards quick fixes over sustainable solutions, or discourages questioning established processes, no amount of training will help.
The best problem-solving organisations create environments where curiosity is rewarded, failure is treated as learning, and good questions are valued as much as good answers.
This means leadership commitment that goes far beyond signing training budgets. It means modelling problem-solving behaviour, celebrating thoughtful analysis even when it doesn't lead to immediate solutions, and creating space for the kind of productive uncertainty that good problem-solving requires.
Making It Stick
The test of any problem-solving training isn't what people know when they leave the room—it's what they do differently six months later.
Most training fails this test because it doesn't address the systemic factors that prevent good problem-solving in the first place: time pressure, resource constraints, unclear accountability, and competing priorities.
Effective problem-solving development needs ongoing support, regular practice opportunities, and integration with normal work processes. It's more like learning a language than attending a seminar.
The organisations that get this right don't just run problem-solving courses—they embed problem-solving thinking into everything they do. Team meetings include time for questioning assumptions. Project reviews focus as much on process improvement as outcome achievement. Performance discussions include problem-solving capability alongside technical skills.
The Bottom Line
Good problem-solving isn't rocket science, but it's not common sense either. It's a learnable skill that most people never properly develop because we keep teaching it wrong.
Stop focusing on frameworks and start developing judgment. Stop brainstorming in isolation and start solving real problems together. Stop treating problem-solving as a special skill and start making it part of how your organisation thinks.
Your team doesn't need another problem-solving methodology. They need permission to think clearly, time to observe carefully, and support to act decisively.
The printer still isn't going to plug itself in. But at least your people might think to check the power cord before calling IT.
Further Resources: