THE EFFECTIVE PROBLEMSOLVER #113
As I’ve been finishing my course on becoming a more rigorous and effective problem solver, I’ve noticed something that’s been hiding in plain sight for years:
Very few people are actually working on problems.
I don’t mean people aren’t busy. They are.
I don’t mean people don’t care. They do.
I don’t mean organizations lack mission statements or strategic plans. Most have plenty.
What I mean is this: in most civic, nonprofit, government, philanthropic, and economic-development environments, almost no one is tasked with seeing that a problem actually improves.
And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
A Clue From Early in My Career
This realization goes back to some of my earliest work in St. Paul, when I was tasked with looking at the actual outcomes of workforce programs.
To me, it seemed like common sense: if we’re spending millions helping people find jobs or training, shouldn’t we know whether it’s actually working?
But I quickly discovered that this idea made many program managers… uneasy.
Some openly opposed reviewing real outcomes.
Others quietly avoided the topic.
At the time, I found it strange—almost baffling.
Two decades later, I understand it more clearly:
It wasn’t an anomaly. It was a feature of bureaucracy and organizational momentum.
Programs, departments, and institutions are built to sustain themselves.
They’re built to stay in motion and justify their existence—not to challenge their own effectiveness.
And yet, in nearly every organization, there are always a few people scattered around the edges who can’t help but ask the uncomfortable but essential question in strategic planning meetings:
“Sure, we can do X and celebrate Y… but what’s actually happening on the issue itself?”
Those voices are rare, but they’re the ones who pull the work toward the truth.
The Work Adjacent to the Work
Most roles in community-serving organizations sit around the problem, not inside it.
- One person writes grants.
- Another facilitates stakeholder groups.
- Another promotes regional assets.
- Many run departments, programs, or portfolios.
- Others convene participants, coordinate coalitions, or publish reports.
All helpful. All necessary.
But none of these roles require anyone to ensure that crime actually drops…that literacy actually improves…that homelessness actually decreases…that a community’s well-being actually shifts.
People are hired to manage tasks, not solve problems.
And daily life inside large institutions is dominated by emails, meetings, HR policies, procurement, compliance, and budgets.
The operational orbit absorbs all the oxygen.
Strategy exists mostly in documents, not in people’s weekly calendars.
Why I Favor Time-Limited Initiatives
This is why I’m such a fan of clear, time-limited initiatives—whether launched by government, nonprofits, philanthropy, or public–private partnerships.
When they’re done well, they do something rare: they give a team one job—to improve a specific issue.
Not “run this department.”
Not “maintain this coalition.”
Not “preserve the funding.”
But actually improve something.
And because they’re time-bound, they force the crucial question after a few years:
- Is the problem actually getting better?
- If not, should we pivot, shut it down, or hand it to someone else?
Permanent structures rarely ask these questions honestly.
Time-limited initiatives have no choice.
Are You Working on the Problem or Around It?
Here are three ways to find out—plus one deeper practice to anchor your work in the right place.
1. Look at your calendar.
If your time is dominated by internal obligations, you’re probably orbiting the problem, not affecting it.
2. Ask: “What does progress look like, and who is tracking it?”
If the answer is fuzzy, fragmented, or missing entirely, no one is steering.
3. Name the person responsible for outcome improvement.
If you can’t identify them—or if the answer is “we all are”—then no one is.
4. Adopt one weekly measure tied directly to the problem’s real behavior.
Not a task metric. Not an internal KPI. Not a feel-good indicator.
But something that reflects what’s actually happening on the ground.
Track it. Talk about it. Let it shape decisions.
This simple discipline can shift you from organizational responsibilities to problem responsibilities—which is where real progress starts.
If my course has taught me anything as I’ve built it, it’s this:
Communities don’t need more activity. They need more people who take responsibility for actually improving the issue.
Let’s help more leaders become those people.
See you in two weeks.
