Field Note #6: When the fix becomes the frame

One of the benefits of working with the same team over a long period is the opportunity to see patterns in the way they interpret information and respond.

Recently, during a conversation with a Senior Leader, I commented on the common interventions they leaned on when a certain problem arose. There was nothing wrong with their ideas, but it occurred to me that, while they helped address the immediate challenge, they weren't necessarily recognising or addressing what might be creating the issue in the first place.

I started thinking about how we tend to build automatic, almost reflexive responses to situations that look familiar based on where we think problems live in the organisation. 

For example, 1:1 coaching assumes that at least some of the problem sits with the individual. Facilitation might assume it sits with the collective. Organisational design might assume it’s structural.

Of course, it’s too simplistic to say that problems live in a single place. Most organisational problems are far more complex than that.

But it’s interesting to note where we as indivIduals and teams start when it comes to finishing the statement, 

“We have a problem with…”

The answer might tell us something about where we believe the problem lives.

Think back to one of your recent team meetings. When a problem was raised, how did the sentence end?

Was it…

We have a problem with James.

We have a problem with Finance.

We have a problem with expense approvals and reimbursement.

We have a problem with accountability.

Each of those statements contains a judgement: that we already know where the problem lives. That doesn't make our decision wrong. But it does make me wonder what we might be missing.

The default intervention might solve part of the problem. But we can’t always be sure which parts will get solved and which ones will remain. And once we've framed the issue that way, we tend to see more of what we already expect. What we can't see in our initial assessment stays outside the frame.

I wonder how much our default interventions influence the way we see and scope things. Do they put us into a loop that then becomes surprisingly difficult to break?

Does this sequence feel familiar in any way?

I have a ‘problem team member’ who needs 1:1 coaching.

The more I look, the more I see problem behaviours, capability gaps, challenging relationships.

I start to trust this team member less.

The more I want to hand this over to a coach to help me “fix” this person.

Consider the same scenario…

My team are struggling to get cut through when they work with their internal partners.

I think we need a workshop to air out all the grievances between them.

I heard that the team did a poor job of collaborating during the workshop.

I start to trust the team less.

I think we need another workshop, and this time I'll attend.

That’s actually what makes the loops so hard to see. The intervention can be really effective. The individual’s performance may improve as a result of the coaching. The team might start showing up differently to collaborative sessions. It reinforces the sense that we made the right call.

The same person could have been at the centre of either situation, but depending on our 'go-to fix-it' intervention, we define and attempt to resolve it differently.

Both could be true and critical to the resolution. 

Neither one is necessarily wrong or right. But that still doesn't necessarily mean we captured the whole story.

There may be other factors contributing to what we're seeing that remain out of view because we've already decided where to intervene.

I wonder more about what either of these approaches might be preventing us from seeing or doing.