Manage Issues vs Finding Solutions

Framing our situation is important, because the lens we choose to use when examining the world around us influences what we see, the actions we believe are helpful and the outcomes we seek. Ask an academic about the choice of theoretical frameworks and you’ll need copious amounts of caffeine to survive the lecture. Prominent, exceptionally important, yet rarely discussed.

This week I had the privilege with speaking to Dr. Victor Deyglio, President and Founder of the Logistics Institute, on the concepts surrounding strategic leadership and thought. Not planning, not roadmaps and steps, but the cognitive art of contemplating the world around us, what it could or might be and the value added of thinking strategically. Not a savant skill, but a learned one, from formal education, life experience or mentorship, when one understands the art of strategy thinking, we are capable of brilliant things.

One notable area is properly identifying the pain. Organizations, people, communities, nations, corporations and any formal collection of humans and things will experience hard times. A sharp decline in revenue, an emerging market collapses, a competitor seizes market share, your principal donor closes or any host of external action or situation produces harm. Or simply that we exist in a chaotic environment, where uncertainty reigns and wicked problems and poly crises persist.

Leaders make decisions, they examine the information or data, seek guidance or advice, but in the end are tasked with committing their organizations to a path. That pathway, when grounded in strategy thinking has a higher degree of resilience, because the leader is managing issues, not finding solutions.

Solutions are the endgame for problems that are 100% within the control of management. Personnel, resources, processes, policies and procedures are designed to address known problems, to offer solutions to end the harm. Solution seekers require authority and control, which is why they can only be successful when looking inward. To look to the environment, over which we have exceptionally little influence, requires a different lens, that of managing issues vice finding solutions.

When we consider the myriad of problems, existential for some, the aim is not to invest finite resources in trying to solve a problem within another organization, but leading our teams through the issue presented by the external problem. Issue management is the concept of leveraging the resources over which we have control, to find the least disruptive and most helpful pathway for our team.

I cannot control the decision of the US Federal government to change the funding allocations related to FEMA. That is a problem in another organization over which I have little influence. The intelligent response is to understand how I navigate the issue presented by the change in funding models. This reaction is rare, when we examine the proliferation of articles and posts on LinkedIn, almost to an exception, they are demanding an outcome they cannot control, bemoaning the change - but few offer ideas on mitigating loss, other than simply demanding someone else provides the resources. Change is here, it really is inconsequential whether you agree or not, but as a leader in your organization, how will you leverage your assets to manage the issue?

I am a leader in a few organizations and life has taught me that I cannot influence or change your organization’s operations. What I have absolute control over is how I will empower my teams to navigate the situation, to find the least disruptive and impactful roadmap to to the extent possible, ensure the mission is completed and the vision respected.

A leader who manages issues, who understands the real limitations on their influence, conceptualizes what the possible outcomes are within their resource limitations. They understand that exogenous shocks correlate with service reductions to their client. Whether that be a municipal emergency management organization, a small business or a multinational.

The pitfall experienced by many is that when an impactful change is abrupt and chaotic, when resources are withdrawn, some choose to attempt to provide similar outcomes. When managing issues, we embrace the equation between available resources and outcomes, influenced by novel and innovative ideas to mitigate, but leaders assess that service levels must change. That is not failure, the reality is that doing something differently can lead to amelioration of some impacts, but as a throwback to mission analysis in the military, irrespective of orders, sometimes exogenous shock is sufficient to change the game.

So when we’re faced with a problem in an organization that we do not control, I’d offer the most advantageous course of action is to embrace issue management, to lead teams to navigate that which we cannot change, to understand the impact and mitigate to the greatest extent possible.

You’re not going to save FEMA, but you could save your own organization and lead it through the chaos. If your organization was dependent on inputs - financial or human from FEMA and you do not have a replacement, your deliverables to your clients must and will change. It is not your responsibility to replace what was lost as a result of decisions beyond your control.

If FEMA did X and it is withdrawn with no additional resources offered, then no one does X. Period. A tough pill to swallow, but attempting to internally absorb significant losses and deliver similar outcomes will burn your team and you to the ground. Stretching beyond capacity is not conducive to sustainability, nor a demonstration of leadership.

The not so subtly embedded idea is that FEMA is providing us an example of resilience, of insulating our organizations from exogenous shock. Whether you live or work within the emergency management function or another competency, the principals apply, you have a span of control and influence. You are capable of great things within that sphere, however the roadmap to failure is to expend the limited resources you do have trying to solve something outside your control.

An example. If I manage an organization that delivers food security to large scale disasters and 50% of my funding is from FEMA, then if that funding is withdrawn, I cannot be expected to deliver the same outcome. Within my team I might leverage novel and innovative ideas to mitigate the loss, but the inevitable deliverable is a lower volume of service irrespective of the disaster induced needs.

Where leaders excel is the paradigm challenging anomaly. In our example, finding a new way to deliver food security to the affected without FEMA funding. It is not a question of replacing the funding from a different source, that is reinforcing the previous framework, it is the opportunity to seek novel ideas - managing the issue.

Translate that to training, an important mission delivered by FEMA. As those resources are withdrawn, is the response simply to not provide training, or are there other methodologies to deliver education to the practitioner without the involvement of FEMA - and not simply resurrecting the same structure under a different funding model?

Chaos spurs innovation, we advance when we are forced outside our comfort zone and into issue management, to lead our teams through shocks we do not control. The disruptions to FEMA offer us a case study, what we learn from it will be up to us. Whether we improve will be our decision.