When to offer a new frame
After working in the corporate world for a good while now, I can appreciate the wealth of available brain power it can offer. Everyone at every level can muster at least one good solution or even “the answer” to any problem that is presented, and most team members are very generous with their input, especially during times of organized spit-balling. This excercise varies from company-to-company, but team brain-storming sessions are still out there. They are still the guided brain-dump situations where the brilliance of the best and brightest within the organization gets to shine. As seemingly perfect solutions to difficult problems are offered and run up the chain of command to be ultimately approved, it can be a cause for celebration. It seems that jobs stay secure (at least, for the moment) and everyone can move on to the next big problem to solve. But, in these situations, there’s one thing that hardly ever gets questioned or explored. The problem, itself, is left unquestioned.
According to Three Ways to Reframe a Problem to Find an Innovative Solution, by Stephanie Vozza, “Creativity is applying imagination to address a challenge.” In her list of ways to find innovation, she also mentions a need to seek innovation by evaluating the situation from a fresh perspective. In her “birthday party for David” example, she suggests to rewrite the question, “How can we make David’s day memorable?” In other words, reframe the problem.
To be fair, most of these teams exist to problem-solve. The challenge is handed down by the stakeholders that perform upstream from the bulk of the teams. And, most team members are expected to engineer an answer for a specific problem that has been pre-framed, vetted and sent downstream for resolution. So, if a stakeholder requests a party for David, heads will role if no party happens? That’s one way to make David’s day memorable.
There is also Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg and his “Seven practices for effective reframing”, which he admits may also require situational context to be considered in their application. He recognizes that knowing how and when a problem should be reframed is as valuable as having the proper reframing habitude? But, although he outlines scenarios in regard to the “control of the situation,” the assumption in this article is that a team member has the opportunity to reframe a problem. It seems to be authored for a specific type of problem-solver, one with the opportunity to reframe at will.
The reality is that, in many large, older and more stable companies, identifying the problem or having a seat in the problem reframing room is reserved for the more experienced stakeholders. To further explore the problem by anyone other than the stakeholder, at this point, can be viewed as problematic, and a wasteful use of valuable company time. It can also be construed as insubordination (sad, but true). Thus, “frame-storming” instead of brainstorming may be more innovative, and more productive, but it may not be always be the proper course of action.
There are many reasons why this situation exists. A cynic would call it power-hoarding by the company leadership, or a tactic rooting in job-security by middle-management.
Upon this realization, the understandable cry for disruption in the company is a natural knee-jerk reaction. That is also just a high-pitched whine that falls on the deaf ears positioned high above, and probably the last sound one makes as they’re escorted off the company campus.
If a low-level problem-solver is in a position which lacks the freedom or authority to reframe the big problems, looking for other employment is probably the most attractive alternative. But, that may just be avoidance of a solid challenge, and a missed opportunity. It is better to see the situation differently, and learn to navigate through the company to find a seat in the right room, than to seek easier problems to solve elsewhere.
The truth may be that some problem-solvers stand in front of the business curtain and are not privy to the whole situation. Accoring to Inc, “On average, the most successful companies devoted about 70 percent of their innovation assets (time and money) to “safe” core initiatives.” So, in order to control outcomes, reframing may not be allowed at certain levels because pie-in-the-sky ideas are, in fact, a waste of time and resources.
Be smart intelligently. Reframing problems is a very powerful skill for innovation, but it’s useless if there’s a lack of perceived credibility in the innovator, or if bigger toes get stepped on. Work up to the opportunity. Always send up what is expected and requested, as limiting as it may be, and never ignore the exact request. If Mrs. CEO specifically asks for a party for Dave because she has insights you don’t have, then offer a plan for the best party Dave can have. But, take the opportunity to offer a smarter, and more beneficial alternative. In effect, give them what they want to show responsiveness, and offer them what they may need to show innovative thinking.
Yes, this approach takes time, and may not be as sexy as revolution or disruption, but successful stakeholders recognize valuable and smarter team members as much as they want their problems to be addressed as they have already been framed.
