Wicked Problems
“Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them.” — Laurence J. Peter
We live in a world laden with wicked problems. Problems like terrorism, transnational crime, hunger, economic mobility, or mass migration are pressing issues that generate national attention and a call to some type of action. Society yearns for absolute success or cures to these serious issues. Cures are not likely, as these problems are highly interconnected to other complex problems. We therefore require leaders with sophisticated capabilities (aka “wicked skills”) to drive progress. In a world polarized by ever growing gaps between haves versus have nots, (access to food, wealth, education, access to healthcare, or general economic mobility) it is increasingly difficult to find common ground and generate even incremental progress. Public sector leaders are often the individuals called upon to tackle wicked problems. They must do so, even if constrained by outdated infrastructures, stifling bureaucracy, cumbersome processes, and archaic recruitment systems that were originally designed for the messy problems of the last century. In order to be successful, the public sector must strive to transform their existing bureaucracies and revamp their performance incentives to reward bold change agents and move away from consensus management. Consensus management in government encourages the mean, rather than propelling diversity of thought and thus decreases the likelihood of change. Regression to the mean stifles positive disruption or breakthrough performance because existing culture will demand compliance to what is acceptable to the mob. Mobs rarely solve wicked problems. The mean (performance) is the unit of measure of the status quo. We need public sector leaders and mid-managers to stand up, speak out, and boldly prepare the workforce for the many challenges of today.
What are wicked problems?
Wicked problems are societal problems that cannot be solved in a linear manner, through checklists or universal manuals. Wicked problems require sophisticated in-depth knowledge of issues, cognitive complexity, as well as savvy problem solving skills. No one will ever claim “mission accomplished” on the wicked problem set. Success is defined by levels of improvement or positive trending. Because these social problems are often so intractable and complex, leaders can be easily distracted and misled into consequence mitigation versus root causes. It is much easier in government to focus on activities we can count or measure easily, in other words, “output.” Greater output suggests more value for taxpayer dollars. But is greater output really progress on the problem as a whole? What about the outcomes rather than the outputs? Few leaders are rewarded or thanked for bringing highly complex solutions to the table, particularly without straightforward, low-cost alternatives. To bring a problem forward for discussion without an end-game solution is almost heresy in many public sector circles. The public sector culture is oftentimes reductionist by design. This often leads leaders to place too much focus on symptoms of problems because they are familiar, easier to explain to stakeholders and the workforce. People just want to “get moving” on activities.
Problem solving by sheer kinetic movement rarely produces the best results, yet leaders are often promoted for tactical success and adherence to cultural norms, not strategic or systems thinking. This may explain why spending heavily on wicked problems doesn’t always lead to commensurate outcomes in government.
When do we call them “wicked”?
H. Rittel (in his book Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning), one of the first to formalize a theory of wicked problems, cites ten characteristics of these complicated social issues:
Wicked problems have no definitive formulation. The problem of poverty in Texas is grossly similar but discretely different from poverty in Nairobi, so no practical characteristics describe “poverty.”
- It’s hard, maybe impossible, to measure or claim success with wicked problems because they bleed into one another, unlike the boundaries of traditional design problems that can be articulated or defined.
- Solutions to wicked problems can be only good or bad, not true or false. There is no idealized end state to arrive at, and so approaches to wicked problems should be tractable ways to improvea situation rather than solve it.
- There is no template to follow when tackling a wicked problem, although history may provide a guide. Teams that approach wicked problems must literally make things up as they go along.
- There is always more than one explanation for a wicked problem, with the appropriateness of the explanation depending greatly on the individual perspective of the designer.
- Every wicked problem is a symptom of another problem. The interconnected quality of socio-economic political systems illustrates how, for example, a change in education will cause new behavior in nutrition.
- No mitigation strategy for a wicked problem has a definitive scientific test because humans invented wicked problems and science exists to understand natural phenomena.
- Offering a “solution” to a wicked problem frequently is a “one shot” design effort because a significant intervention changes the design space enough to minimize the ability for trial and error.
- Every wicked problem is unique.
- Designers attempting to address a wicked problem must be fully responsible for their actions.
Public sector leaders are called upon to address wicked problems as part of their responsibility to serve the public interest. Solutions to these problems will undoubtedly challenge the status quo. They will demand more from executives, who often are incentivized by large bureaucracies to tackle symptoms, and not invest time developing long term solutions for “unwinnable” problems. Executives will need to deliberately grow “wicked skills” across their workforce and attract highly skilled personnel into the Federal ranks. Solutions making as exists today will need to change. This is particularly difficult in federal environments where activity-based solutions are the norm. Complexity is often frowned upon in government, and considered too risky because wins are elusive. Thankfully, I see renewed interest by the public sector to seek diversity of thought, engage in meaningful dialogue, and build a stronger cadre of problem solvers with the relevant skills to address emerging needs of society.
