Posts

The Art of Creative Problem Solving: Why Most Training Gets It Wrong

Related Articles:

Three weeks ago, I watched a manager spend forty-five minutes in a meeting trying to "brainstorm solutions" to a simple rostering conflict. The whiteboard filled with colour-coded sticky notes, elaborate flowcharts, and enough buzzwords to make a consultant weep with joy. Meanwhile, the actual solution—asking the two conflicted staff members what they preferred—took about ninety seconds once someone finally thought to do it.

This is the problem with how we teach creative problem solving in Australian workplaces. We've turned it into this mystical, process-heavy beast that requires facilitation, frameworks, and follow-up sessions. But here's what fifteen years of fixing workplace disasters has taught me: the best problem solvers I know don't follow any of those fancy models.

The Myth of Structured Creativity

Walk into any corporate training room and you'll see the same poster on the wall: "The 7-Step Problem Solving Process" or some variation thereof. Define the problem, gather information, generate alternatives, evaluate options, implement solutions, monitor results, rinse and repeat. It's logical, it's comprehensive, and it's completely missing the point.

Real problems don't arrive in neat packages with clear definitions and obvious stakeholders. They're messy, emotional, and usually involve someone's ego getting bruised. The retail manager dealing with aggressive customers doesn't have time to "generate alternatives" when there's a queue forming and voices are getting raised.

I learned this the hard way during my early consulting days. Brought in to solve a "communication breakdown" at a Perth manufacturing plant, I arrived armed with assessment tools and action plans. Spent the first week interviewing stakeholders and mapping processes. Turns out the real issue was that the night shift supervisor and day shift supervisor were brothers who'd had a falling out over their mother's birthday party six months earlier.

No amount of structured problem-solving methodology was going to fix that. Sometimes you just need someone to say, "Right, you two are being ridiculous."

What Actually Works

The most effective problem solvers share three characteristics that you won't find in any training manual. First, they're comfortable with ambiguity. They don't need all the facts before they start moving. Second, they ask really stupid questions that nobody else wants to ask. And third—this is crucial—they're willing to look like they don't know what they're doing.

That last point trips up a lot of managers. We're so concerned with appearing competent that we skip the obvious solutions and jump straight to the complex ones. I once worked with a Brisbane-based logistics company where delivery drivers were constantly getting lost in new suburban developments. Management's solution involved GPS upgrades, route optimisation software, and additional training modules.

The drivers' solution? Call the customer when you can't find the house. Revolutionary stuff.

Creative problem solving isn't about being clever; it's about being honest about what you don't know and curious enough to find out. The strategic thinking and analytical training that many organisations invest in often misses this fundamental point.

The Australian Advantage

Here's something that might surprise you: Australians are naturally better at creative problem solving than most other cultures, and it's got nothing to do with our education system. It's cultural. We're comfortable with failure, we don't take ourselves too seriously, and we have a healthy disrespect for authority.

These are exactly the conditions where creative solutions flourish. When you're not afraid of looking stupid, you'll try things that more cautious cultures won't attempt. When you don't automatically defer to the person with the fanciest title, you might actually listen to the apprentice who's got a better idea.

I've seen this play out in workplaces across the country. The mining companies that give their operators genuine input into safety procedures. The cafes that let their youngest staff members redesign the customer flow. The tech startups that actually implement suggestions from their graduate developers.

But then we send these same people to corporate training courses that teach them to suppress these instincts in favour of "best practice" methodologies. We're literally training the creativity out of them.

The Collaboration Trap

Another sacred cow that needs addressing: the assumption that all problems require collaborative solutions. Sometimes they do. Often they don't. But we've become so obsessed with "bringing stakeholders together" and "fostering team-based approaches" that we've forgotten some problems are best solved by one person with the authority to make a decision.

Not everything needs a committee. Not every issue requires buy-in from all affected parties. Sometimes the fastest path to a solution is having someone just bloody well decide what's going to happen and then communicate it clearly.

I'm not advocating for workplace tyranny here, but there's a middle ground between autocratic decision-making and endless consultation. Good leaders know which problems need collaborative input and which ones just need decisive action. The trick is building enough trust within your team that people accept your judgment calls when you make them.

This is where those problem-solving decision making training programs can actually be valuable—not for teaching you how to solve problems, but for helping you understand when to involve others in the process.

The Innovation Paradox

Here's where it gets interesting. The organisations that talk most about innovation are often the worst at implementing creative solutions. They'll spend months planning "innovation workshops" and "creative thinking sessions" while simultaneously rejecting any suggestion that deviates from established protocols.

Real innovation in problem solving happens in the gaps between formal processes. It's the accounts receivable clerk who figures out a better way to chase overdue payments. It's the warehouse manager who redesigns the loading dock layout during a quiet afternoon. It's the customer service rep who develops their own script for handling difficult calls.

None of these innovations came from a brainstorming session. They came from people who were frustrated with the current system and had the autonomy to try something different.

The companies that understand this—Atlassian comes to mind, along with several of the smaller Adelaide tech firms I've worked with—create environments where these informal innovations can emerge and spread. They don't mandate creativity; they just remove the barriers that prevent it from happening naturally.

Teaching What Can't Be Taught

So if structured approaches don't work, and creativity can't be mandated, how do we actually improve problem-solving capabilities within our organisations? The answer is frustratingly simple: we stop trying to teach it directly and start creating conditions where it can develop naturally.

This means giving people problems to solve rather than solutions to implement. It means tolerating failure as long as people learn from it. It means rewarding good judgment even when the outcome isn't perfect. And it means accepting that some people are naturally better at this stuff than others.

Not everyone needs to be a creative problem solver. Some roles require consistency, attention to detail, and adherence to established procedures. But every organisation needs at least a few people who can think laterally when the standard approaches aren't working.

The challenge is identifying these people and giving them the freedom to operate. They're rarely the ones volunteering for leadership roles or speaking up in meetings. They're more likely to be quietly fixing problems that nobody else has even noticed yet.

Moving Forward

After all these years, I've concluded that the best problem-solving training doesn't focus on problem-solving at all. It focuses on curiosity, communication, and the courage to challenge assumptions. Everything else is just technique.

The next time you're faced with a workplace problem, try this: instead of reaching for your favourite framework or calling a meeting, spend five minutes asking yourself what you're not seeing. What assumptions are you making? Who haven't you talked to? What would happen if you tried the simplest possible solution first?

You might be surprised by what you discover. Or you might make a complete mess of things. Either way, you'll learn something useful, which is more than you can say for most structured approaches to creative problem solving.

The real art isn't in following a process—it's in knowing when to abandon the process entirely and trust your instincts instead. That's not something you can teach in a workshop, but it's exactly what separates the genuinely effective problem solvers from everyone else.

And if you disagree with any of this, well, that's probably the start of some pretty good problem-solving right there.