Organizations do not suffer only from a lack of solutions. Sometimes, they suffer because they start looking for solutions before they truly understand the problem.
When the solution comes before understanding the problem
“We need to sell more.”
“We have a productivity problem.”
“Our team is demotivated.”
“We need a new strategy.”
These are common statements in organizations. They seem to identify problems and, therefore, create the feeling that work can already begin.
But do they really identify what needs to be solved?
A decline in sales may result from an insufficiently differentiated value proposition, an inadequate sales approach, or a change in the market. A team that appears to be underperforming may be overloaded, working with conflicting priorities, or dependent on inefficient processes.
And a company asking for a new strategy may, in reality, have an appropriate strategy but difficulties in implementing it.
The danger begins when we confuse what we observe — the consequence — with what we assume to be the cause.
This is where a simple idea, known as Kidlin’s Law, becomes relevant to management: clearly writing down the problem is a fundamental step towards solving it.
Not because writing produces magical answers, but because it forces us to turn a vague concern into a question that we can examine.
Kidlin’s Law: the importance of defining the problem
Kidlin’s Law is commonly expressed as follows:
“If you write the problem down clearly, then the matter is half solved.”
The exact origin of this maxim is not clearly established, so it is more accurate to treat it as a popular problem-solving principle rather than as a formal scientific law.
Its message, however, is practical: clarity in defining the problem reduces ambiguity and creates the conditions for finding relevant solutions.
When a problem exists only in our heads, it tends to mix facts, interpretations, emotions and assumptions. When we write it down, we are forced to choose our words, define what we are describing and acknowledge what we still do not know.
This discipline can reveal that the initial problem was too broad, that we were confusing a symptom/consequence with a cause, or that we had already chosen a solution before understanding the situation.
Jason Feifer, editor-in-chief of Entrepreneur, develops a very similar approach, suggesting that instead of trying to solve an abstract problem, we should first identify the specific difficulty behind it and explore alternative explanations.
The idea is particularly useful in a business context, where the pressure to act can lead teams to jump directly from concern to solution.
The cost of solving the wrong problem
Imagine a company whose sales are declining.
The team meets and concludes that it needs to strengthen its sales activity. The response seems logical: hire more salespeople, increase the number of contacts and intensify marketing campaigns.
But what if the problem is not the amount of activity?
What if the company is attracting customers who do not fit its target market? Or what if the value proposition does not address buyers’ priorities? Or what if sales opportunities are being generated but are not progressing because the decision-making process is too long?
Each hypothesis points to a different intervention.
Hiring more salespeople may increase costs without solving the underlying difficulty. An additional campaign may generate more poorly qualified leads. Revising the value proposition may be relevant — but only if that is actually the issue that needs to be addressed.
A solution can be consistent with the problem we imagined and completely inappropriate for solving the real problem.
The conclusion is clear: before choosing a response, we need to understand what question we are actually trying to answer.
From symptom to a concrete problem definition
A good problem definition does not need to be complicated. It needs to be precise enough to guide investigation and action.
Let us compare two statements:
- Vague formulation: “Our team is not being productive.”
It does not clarify what productivity means, who is affected, under what circumstances it happens, or what the impact is.
- More useful formulation: “Over the past two months, three recurring deliverables have been completed late because priorities change after work has already started.”
It identifies a time period, an observable pattern and a possible explanation — which still needs to be verified.
The second formulation does not automatically solve the problem. But it allows the investigation to begin: How frequently do priorities change? Who changes them? What consequences do these changes have? Are there other causes for the delays?
A useful definition should help the team distinguish between what it knows and what it still needs to discover.
To do this, we can start with six questions:
- Who is affected?
- What is happening, in observable terms?
- When and where does it happen?
- What is the scale of the problem?
- Why does it matter to the business?
- What do we still not know about its causes?
The clearer the definition, the easier it becomes to guide the analysis — without prematurely assuming that we already know the answer.
Defining the problem is not the same as identifying the cause
There is, however, an important distinction between Defining the Problem and Diagnosing its Causes.
Defining the problem means clearly describing what is happening. Diagnosing means investigating why it is happening.
A company might define the problem as follows:
“The conversion rate from proposals to sales has declined over the last three quarters.”
This formulation is more useful than saying “sales are weak,” but it still does not explain the cause. We can put forward several possible explanations:
Have the proposals stopped responding to customers’ needs?
Has the price become less competitive?
Has the profile of opportunities changed?
Has the competition started offering different terms?
The definition establishes the starting point. Investigation allows us to test explanations.
For this reason, problem-solving should not rely on:
Complaint → Assumption → Solution
Instead, it should follow:
Define → Investigate → Diagnose → Decide → Act → Learn
Kidlin’s Law does not replace analysis, experience or specialist knowledge. It helps create a clearer foundation on which to use them.
Why is it so difficult to define problems properly?
If the idea is simple, why do so many organizations move towards solutions before clarifying the problem?
The pressure to demonstrate action. In demanding environments, stopping to formulate the problem can be interpreted as hesitation. But activity is not necessarily progress: it is possible to implement a solution quickly for a difficulty that was never properly identified.
The weight of the first explanations. Once a team assumes that “we need more customers,” it becomes natural to discuss campaigns and acquisition channels — even if the real issue lies in retention or profitability.
The difficulty of challenging the consensus. When an explanation is put forward by someone with authority, it can become difficult to question it. Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety and organizational learning helps us understand the importance of creating conditions in which people can express doubts and concerns.
Confusing the problem with the desired solution. “We need to implement a new system” does not, by itself, identify the difficulty. Is there a lack of information, errors in processes, or too much manual work? Technology may be an appropriate response, but the need for it should emerge from an understanding of the problem.
A practical method: five steps before deciding
Kidlin’s Law can be transformed into a simple practice for management meetings, strategic projects or operational challenges.
01 Write down the problem Record the initial concern without immediately trying to find the solution.
02 Separate facts from interpretations Identify what is observable and what is an explanation that still needs to be confirmed.
03 Explore alternative explanations Ask what other causes could explain the same situation.
04 Identify the missing information Determine what data, conversations or tests could help distinguish between hypotheses.
05 Define the desired outcome Clarify what should change and how it will be possible to assess whether the solution worked.
This method does not require every doubt to be resolved before taking action. It requires the organization to know what it is trying to understand and to ensure that its decisions are proportionate to the information available.
The role of leadership: creating space to understand
Defining a problem well is not only an analytical skill. It is also a matter of leadership and organizational culture.
A leader who immediately presents their solution may, even unintentionally, limit the exploration of alternatives. A team that knows it will be judged by the speed of its response may prefer to appear confident rather than admit that further investigation is needed.
A leader can improve the quality of the discussion by asking:
- “What do we actually know about this situation?”
- “Are we describing the problem or proposing a solution?”
- “What other explanations should we consider?”
- “What information could make us change our minds?”
- “How will we know whether we have solved what really matters?”
These questions do not diminish the leader’s authority. They help direct the team’s attention towards the quality of its reasoning and the results it aims to achieve.
Leadership is not about always having the answer. It is also about creating the conditions for the organization to find better-grounded answers.
Key Takeaways
- Before looking for a solution, clarify the problem. A vague concern does not provide enough direction for effective action.
- Do not confuse symptoms with causes. An undesirable outcome may have several explanations.
- Writing helps make reasoning explicit. It allows us to identify assumptions and recognize what we still do not know.
- Explore hypotheses before choosing an intervention. The first explanation may be wrong.
- Defining is not diagnosing. Definition establishes what is happening; investigation seeks to understand why.
- Culture influences problem-solving. Teams need space to question and learn.
- Clarity should lead to action. The objective is to understand enough to decide, act and learn.
The Question for Leaders
When an important challenge arises within an organization, the pressure to act is natural.
But before approving a new project, hiring resources, changing processes or launching an initiative, it is worth pausing.
Not to delay the decision, but to ensure that everyone understands what they are trying to solve.
Are we solving the problem we actually have — or the one that, at first glance, appeared to exist?
Perhaps the next management meeting should begin not with “What are we going to do?”, but with an earlier question:
“What exactly is the problem we need to solve?”