Problem Solvers, Not Problem Pointers

Every job has problems, from day-to-day operations to costs, revenue, margins, customers, deals… Well, deals are really one big problem that both sides need to solve. Sometimes it's easier than others. Other times, what one side sees as boilerplate or a standard clause is a deal-breaker for the other side. My point is, there are all kinds of problems, and if you want to always be of value to your organization, it behooves you to be seen as a problem solver, not a "problem pointer." It is easy to walk into a meeting, criticize the plan, name the risks, and explain why something will fail. But if all you bring is criticism, you are not helping the business move forward. You are simply making yourself a spectator to the work.

What separates valuable people from deadweights is not the ability to identify what's wrong. That's the easy part, pointing it out and complaining about it. I am not pretending I have never done it. I have. But it is a habit worth quitting quickly. You want to add value? You need to be obsessive about trying to understand the problem, which in many cases is easier said than done, especially when the problem belongs to someone else and you have to put yourself in their shoes.

Good operators identify the problem and bring options; if options are not readily available, they sit with it and get creative about how to solve the problem, because that is what business is: everything is about solving a problem. You develop a product or service? You're solving a problem. Are your costs through the roof? You're solving a problem. You need to hire? Solving yet another problem. What varies is the intensity, complexity, and risk associated with these problems, but they are just problems nonetheless. You do not need to have all the answers, but you take responsibility for helping to find one. The best people make difficult situations more manageable, not more chaotic.

The same principle applies to hiring, promotions, and leadership teams. Too many companies confuse going along and getting along with someone for loyalty, and loyalty for competence. Those are not the same thing. You can have folks from technical roles to the C-suite who are friendly, agreeable, and supportive of the leadership team. That does not automatically mean they can make sound decisions, manage a function, lead people, or execute under pressure. You may even have those who resemble Gríma Wormtongue from The Lord of the Rings, who gain and keep access by whispering bad advice and pandering to the ears of the "powers that be." Those characters are in almost every organization. A leader who promotes friends over performers is not building loyalty; they are building a comfort zone. And the old adage is true: "There's no growth in the comfort zone."

While relationships, trust, and loyalty matter, none of them can replace competence. A great organization should strive to hire and keep people who are both trustworthy and capable. If forced to choose, however, the business cannot afford to ignore competence simply because someone is familiar, likable, or "politically safe," aka they don't ruffle the C-suite feathers.

The standard is simple: Are you an asset to the organization when problems arise? If your main contribution is pointing out what everyone else is doing wrong, you are not leading; you're just standing on the sidelines, pretending to be in the arena.

The standard is simple: Are you an asset to the organization when problems arise? If your main contribution is pointing out what everyone else is doing wrong, you are not leading; you're just standing on the sidelines, pretending to be in the arena.