problem solving oriented person

Work Life is Atlassian’s flagship publication dedicated to unleashing the potential of every team through real-life advice, inspiring stories, and thoughtful perspectives from leaders around the world.

Contributing Writer

Work Futurist

Senior Quantitative Researcher, People Insights

Principal Writer

Characteristics of solution-oriented leaders and how to foster this mindset on your team

Contributing writer

It doesn’t matter how effective a leader you might be —at some point, you (and your team!) are going to run into some common problems.

Leadership isn’t about creating a problem-free work environment. It’s how you choose to approach and manage the inevitable bumps in the road that arise that will set you apart as an effective leader.

If you want to maximize effectiveness—for yourself and your team—the best way to approach and manage those problems is with a solution-oriented mindset.

Being a solution-oriented leader is a great way to better and more swiftly manage challenges in your business—and to encourage your team to do the same.

But what, exactly, is solution-oriented leadership? What are the top characteristics of solution-oriented leaders? And how can you foster a more solution-oriented mindset—both within yourself and in your team?

The Top Qualities Of Solution-Oriented Leaders

First things first. Before jumping into how to become a more solution-oriented leader (and to inspire the same kind of solution-focused mindset in your team), let’s quickly touch on what solution-oriented leadership is .

Some of the top characteristics of solution-oriented leaders include:

They Know When To Take Action—And When To Take A Step Back

When a problem arises, solution-oriented leaders don’t sit around waiting for a solution to present itself—they get out there and take action to find the solution themselves.

“Leaders who are solution-oriented are really focused on action conversations ,” says Heather Marasse, Executive Coach and Managing Partner of Trilogy Effect . “They want to keep things moving and they’re very curious when things stop; they want to dig into what’s stopping the action. Because action is what produces results and solution-oriented leaders are results-focused.”

But interestingly, the opposite is also true. While solution-oriented leaders don’t hesitate to take action when necessary, they also recognize when they’re more likely to find the solution by taking a step back, sitting with the problem, and approaching the issue from the right headspace.

“Very often, we think a solution-oriented leader is very quick to action. But I think it’s essential that you have the ability to stop, to pause before you respond,” says Victoria Roos Olsson, a Senior Leadership Consultant at FranklinCovey with over 20 years of experience in leadership development and coaching. “It’s very easy to jump into action…but solution -oriented is not necessarily the same thing as action -oriented.”

They Keep Their Focus Forward

Solution-oriented leaders don’t spin their wheels stressing about past problems or what’s going wrong; instead, they keep their eye on the prize—and keep their focus on what needs to happen for themselves and their teams to continue moving forward.

“We get so caught up in what’s going on in the moment and what’s happened in the past, we kind of lose sight of that future horizon and the longer game,” says Marasse. “Leaders who are most solution-oriented tend to have a very relentless focus on the future. They really keep the horizon in front of themselves and their teams.”

They Inspire Their Team To Focus On Solutions

When you’re a leader, it’s important to cultivate a solution-focused mindset within yourself. But that’s only part of the equation, the most effective solution-oriented leaders inspire the same “let’s roll up our sleeves and figure this out” mentality in their teams.

“Just because you are a solution-oriented person , it doesn’t necessarily make you a solution-oriented leader ,” says Olsson. “The whole purpose of you being a leader is that you can create that [solution-oriented mindset] in others.”

How To Strengthen A Solution-Oriented Mindset As A Leader

Cultivating a solution-oriented mindset is a must for effective leadership. But how, exactly, can you cultivate that mindset for yourself?

Ask For Feedback

You can’t find a solution if you don’t recognize there’s a problem. And when it comes to things you could do better as a leader, chances are, you’ve got some blinders on.

That’s where feedback comes in. Asking your team for feedback on how you can improve can help identify problems that you may not be able to see on your own—and, more importantly, find solutions to those problems so you can become a more effective leader.

Ask your team to help you identify areas in your management or leadership style where they see opportunities for growth or for things they feel like you could be doing better. Then (and this is the important part!), stay open and receptive as you receive that feedback.

Having an open and receptive attitude towards feedback will help your team feel more comfortable being honest with you. “How we listen shapes what people feel they can say,” says Olsson—and in order for your team’s feedback to help you identify problems and shift to a more solution-oriented place, you need their feedback to be genuine.

And, as a bonus, not only can getting feedback make you a more effective manager, but giving your team the space to openly share their feedback can actually help their performance as well. According to Atlassian’s research , among high-performing teams, 57 percent of employees said they feel comfortable delivering feedback to people higher up on the org chart—compared to just 15 percent on low-performing teams.

Ask The Questions To Find The Right Answers

You might think that being a solution-oriented leader means finding the answers to problems. But if you want to find innovative and effective solutions, it might do you better to focus on the questions.

“If you want the best answers, you first need to ask the best questions,” says Olsson. “So, really looking at ‘What are the things that are not working? What is it that we’re needing? What should we look for now? Where’s the gap? Why did we do it that way? What’s happening here or what if anything was possible?’”

When faced with a problem in your business, get curious. Get inquisitive. Dig into the questions. By engaging your curiosity, the answers to your questions—aka the solutions to your problems—will naturally emerge.

Stop Playing The Blame Game

When you’re dealing with a frustrating problem, it can be tempting to point the finger and find someone or something to blame. But if you truly want to get to the solution, stay open minded and collaborative.

“When you start getting into finger pointing and accusations and upsets, it’s probably a red flag that you’re now getting into the problem instead of focusing on the solution,” says Marasse.

The next time you find yourself faced with a problem, instead of trying to find something or someone to blame—which is completely subjective—focus on objective facts.

For example, let’s say you find out your products are shipping a full month past their target date as a result of a warehouse error. “It’s one thing to say that the product shipped 30 days late. It’s another thing to say, the development group didn’t have their act together,” says Marasse. “You want to focus on the facts.”

By refusing to play the blame game (and, instead, focusing on the facts at hand), it’s easier to stay objective and find a solution instead of getting caught up in feeling frustrated or angry at the situation.

Build A Solution-Oriented Culture With Your Team

You know by now that having a solution-oriented mindset is important. But if you truly want to be a solution-oriented leader, it’s important to inspire that same kind of mindset throughout your organization.

Try out these strategies to ensure that your solution-oriented approaches inspire the same kind of mindset in your team.

Empower Your Team To Find The Answers

There’s an old saying that goes, “Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach them how to fish, and you feed them for a lifetime.”

Well, it’s the same thing with solutions. If you want your team to become more solution-oriented, you can’t just give them the solutions to all their problems—you have to help them develop the skills necessary for them to find those solutions for themselves.

“If you want a solution-oriented team and culture, you need to stop giving them the answers,” says Olsson. Instead, try asking them open-ended questions to help them explore the issue and brainstorm solutions. 

“Say, ‘Hey, that’s a really good question. Let’s think about it. What’s your thoughts  on it? How would you approach it?,’” says Olsson. 

The more you put the ball back in their court, the more your team will realize that coming to you with a problem isn’t going to get them the answers they want/need—and the more empowered they’ll feel about finding those answers themselves.

“Eventually, they’ll stop coming with the problems and…[instead], they’ll come with, ‘Hey, I thought of this, would that be a cool idea?’ or ‘I have three different solutions to this problem, can we talk about it?,’” says Olsson. “And that’s exactly where you want to go.”

Embrace Mistakes

The road to finding solutions is rarely a smooth one—especially when you and your team are pushing boundaries or trying new things. So, if you want to keep your team motivated to keep pushing towards solutions, you need to embrace and celebrate every bump in the road .

“If you’re wanting your people to be innovative and dare greatly with their actions, then there needs to be room for mistakes,” says Marrasse. “There needs to be room for failure, and there needs to be a sense of compassion and acceptance around things breaking down.”

When you or someone on your team makes a mistake, celebrate the fact that you figured out something that doesn’t work—and then use that as a springboard for figuring out what does . Otherwise, “you’re going to shut down innovation around you and you’re going to shut down communication around you,” continues Marasse. “That’s the last thing you want if you’re trying to move forward and get solutions in place.”

Taking a positive—or even celebratory—approach to mess-ups “shows to your team that it’s safe to make mistakes,” says Olsson. “And if you’re never making a mistake, you’re never going to progress and find the solutions you’re looking for.”

Celebrate The Wins—And The Journey It Took To Get There

The whole purpose of being solution-oriented is finding solutions to problems. But once the solution has been found, many leaders and teams are so focused on moving onto the next problem. Instead, they don’t take the time to acknowledge their win—and what they can learn from that win to make them more effective problem-solvers moving forward.

“Teams get so focused on problem-solving that often they step over celebrating the wins—and not just what the wins are , but what it took for them to get the win.”

For example, let’s say you and your team finally gained a lead you’ve been nurturing for a year. Instead of immediately moving on to the next lead, take a moment to celebrate—and then figure out what lessons you can take from the experience to be more effective in your pitching moving forward. What about the final pitch pushed the client over the edge and made them close? Did your sales team change something about their process? Did you find a more effective way to speak to the client’s pain points? 

By looking at how you and your team problem-solved your issue and effectively came to a solution, you can better prepare yourself for the next time a similar problem arises—and get to the solution faster and more effectively.

Conjure A Solution-Focused Mindset And Encourage Your Team To Follow Suit

It can be easy to get stuck in a problem. But now that you know how to become a more solution-oriented leader, you have everything you need to get yourself—and your team!—out of the problem and into the solution. 

So what are you waiting for? Get out there and cultivate a more solution-focused approach to work: for yourself, for your team, and for your organization as a whole.

Advice, stories, and expertise about work life today.

Solutions Oriented: How To Cultivate A Results-Driven Mindset

• September 18, 2023
• HR Management

Table of Contents

Ah, the thrill of facing a problem head-on and emerging victorious! Every problem-solver, from a novice to a seasoned expert, knows this feeling. And if you’ve ever found yourself drowning in an issue, wondering why others seem to navigate it effortlessly, you might have noticed a common trait among them – they’re solutions oriented.

What does it mean to be “solutions or solution oriented person”? Is it just a modern-day jargon, or is there more to it? Picture this: Two people are stuck in a dense forest. The first one panics, thinking of all the wild animals, the cold night, and the uncertainty of getting out. The second one, while acknowledging these threats, starts thinking, “How can I climb a tree to see a way out?” or “Can I use the sun’s position to determine the direction?” The second person is a solutions oriented leader or solution oriented leader.

This mindset isn’t about denying problems or being unrealistically optimistic. It’s about focusing energy on: finding solutions, the right answers, learning, and adapting. It’s the difference between seeing a dead-end versus a detour. Being solutions oriented means constantly looking for avenues, even in seemingly impossible situations. It’s about resilience, innovation, and tenacity.

Solutions oriented means focusing on results, finding answers, no risks and relentlessly pursuing the best possible outcomes. Dive in to learn how to cultivate this mindset and succeed in any challenge.

In this guide, we’ll embark on an enlightening journey into the solution oriented mindset and other solution oriented approaches. We’ll delve deep into what it means to be solutions oriented, how you can cultivate this mindset, and the multifaceted benefits it brings to your personal and professional life. Whether you’re a young professional grappling with the challenges of the corporate world or a stay-at-home parent figuring out daily household conundrums, the solutions oriented mindset is your ally.

The world doesn’t stop throwing curveballs. What matters is how we catch them, or better yet, how we hit them back. So, tighten your belts, fellow traveler. By the end of this exploration, you’ll be armed with the tools, insights, and mindset to tackle any challenge that comes your way. Onward and upward!

Understanding A Solutions Oriented Approach

The term “solutions oriented organization” often pops up in corporate jargon, self-help books, and even casual conversations with business leader. But what does it truly encompass? Let’s dive deep into its essence and understand the fundamentals of this approach.

Defining “Solutions Oriented”:

Being solutions or solution oriented team goes beyond the simple act of solving problems. It’s an ingrained mindset, a holistic approach to challenges. Imagine life’s hurdles as a labyrinth. A solutions or solution oriented person doesn’t merely wander aimlessly, hoping for an exit. Instead, they meticulously study the maze, anticipate dead ends, and strategize their route.

Shift From Problem Focus To Solution Focus:

It’s easy for leaders to get trapped in a whirlwind of problems. They’re daunting, often overwhelming, and can cloud our judgment. However, the essence of a problem focused, solutions oriented approach is a steadfast, focused focus on the ‘how’ rather than the ‘why’. While understanding the root of the organization or problem is crucial, dwelling on it without forward momentum serves no purpose. The energy spent lamenting on a problem is better used crafting solutions.

Embrace The Learning Curve:

Every challenge you face is cloaked in lessons. When adopting a solutions oriented mindset, one understands that no challenge is void of value. It’s not about how many times you fall but how you rise after every fall, absorbing the lessons and ensuring the stumbles refine, not define you.

The Proactive vs. Reactive Dichotomy:

A reactive mindset waits for problems to arise and then scrambles to address them. It’s often associated with panic, hasty decisions, and short-term fixes. On the other hand, a proactive, solutions oriented mindset anticipates challenges and prepares for them. It doesn’t merely put out fires; it prevents them.

Continuous Evolution:

The world is in perpetual motion. What worked yesterday may be obsolete today. Being a solutions oriented leader means constantly updating your leadership toolkit, learning, unlearning, and relearning. It’s a commitment to evolution, ensuring you’re always equipped with the best strategies to tackle contemporary leadership challenges.

Key Points:

“Solutions Oriented” is a holistic, proactive approach to challenges.

Focus energy on crafting solutions rather than dwelling on problems.

Every challenge presents opportunities to learn and grow.

Anticipate and prepare for challenges instead of merely reacting to them.

Commit to continuous evolution to remain adept at handling new challenges.

Cultivating A Solutions Oriented Mindset

It’s crucial to recognize that a solutions oriented mindset isn’t a switch you can simply flip on. It’s a garden you cultivate, nurturing it with the right habits, perspectives, and environment. As you grow this solution oriented mindset, not only do you become adept at addressing challenges, but you also evolve as an individual. Let’s uncover the steps and practices to cultivate this empowering mindset.

Stay Curious – The Power of ‘Why’ and ‘How’:

Remember as a child, when every discovery was accompanied by a barrage of ‘whys’ and ‘hows’? This innate curiosity is the foundation of a solutions oriented approach. Instead of accepting things at face value, delve deeper. Whether you’re facing a problem or learning something new, always question the status quo. The quest for understanding drives innovation.

Accept Failures Graciously – Lessons in Disguise:

We’ve been conditioned to view failures as setbacks. In truth, they are invaluable lessons. Every misstep brings with it insights that textbooks and tutorials often can’t offer. By embracing failures, analyzing what went wrong, and iterating based on those insights, you fine-tune your approach and inch closer to effective business solutions .

Surround Yourself With Like-Minded People – Environment Matters:

Your environment, both physical and social, plays a pivotal role in shaping your mindset. Surrounding yourself with solutions oriented individuals ensures that you’re continually inspired, challenged, and supported. Their constructive feedback, diverse perspectives, and shared drive for solutions can act as catalysts for your growth.

Setting Clear Goals – The North Star:

A solutions oriented mindset thrives on clarity. When you have clear goals, it becomes easier to chart a path to achieve them and find solutions aligned with those objectives. These goals act as your North Star, guiding you through challenges and helping you maintain focus on what truly matters.

Develop Resilience – The Art of Bouncing Back:

Resilience is the bedrock of a solutions oriented mindset. It’s not about avoiding failures, but about how quickly and effectively you can bounce back from them. Cultivating resilience involves embracing discomfort, practicing patience, and understanding that the path to solutions will often be riddled with obstacles. Instead of being disheartened, view them as parts of the journey, honing your skills and resolve.

Continuous Learning – Keeping the Toolbox Updated:

In a rapidly changing world, resting on one’s laurels is a recipe for obsolescence. Adopt a learner’s mindset. Attend workshops, read books, participate in discussions, and always seek to expand your horizons. The more tools (knowledge and skills) you have in your toolbox, the better equipped you are to devise innovative solutions.

Nurture innate curiosity; question and understand the ‘why’ and ‘how’.

Embrace failures as rich learning experiences.

Your environment, including the people around you, can either foster or hinder a solutions oriented approach.

Set clear , actionable goals to guide your problem-solving journey.

Build resilience; it’s the backbone of facing and overcoming challenges.

Dedicate yourself to continuous learning to stay adaptive and innovative.

Software Tools To Boost Your Solutions Oriented Approach

In today’s digital age, it’s not just about having the right mindset but also about harnessing the right tools. While a solutions oriented approach is about your mental and emotional faculties, certain software tools can amplify your capacity to solve problems and create impactful solutions. These tools can help streamline processes, organize thoughts, and drive collaboration. Let’s take a closer look at some of these indispensable tools.

Trello – Visualize and Organize Your Ideas:

Trello provides a visual way to organize tasks, ideas, and projects. It’s based on the Kanban methodology and allows users to create boards, lists, and cards to prioritize and categorize tasks. For someone aiming to adopt a solutions oriented mindset, it’s vital to have clarity, and Trello offers just that. By visually mapping out tasks, one can identify bottlenecks, streamline processes, and foster collaboration.

MindMeister – Mapping Your Thoughts:

MindMeister is a collaborative mind-mapping tool. It’s fantastic for brainstorming sessions, organizing thoughts, and visualizing complex concepts. Whether you’re tackling a personal project or a business challenge, this tool helps lay out all facets of a problem, enabling a comprehensive solutions oriented approach.

Evernote – Centralized Note-Taking:

With Evernote , you can keep all your ideas, research, and notes in one centralized place. Its robust search capabilities ensure that you never lose track of crucial information. Being solutions and solution oriented leader often means collating information from varied sources, and Evernote helps you manage this seamlessly.

Slack – Enhancing Collaboration:

Slack is more than just a messaging app; it’s a hub for teamwork. For solutions to truly shine, collaboration is key. Slack provides channels for different projects, ensuring that conversations are organized and accessible. Integrated file sharing, third-party app integrations, and the ability to quickly search across conversations make it a powerhouse for collaborative problem solving.

Coursera – Continuous Learning and Skill Development:

Knowledge is power, especially in a solutions oriented approach. Coursera offers a plethora of courses from universities and institutions around the world, covering diverse topics. From critical thinking to technical skills, continuous learning becomes effortless with such a platform.

Asana – Task and Project Management:

For larger projects, especially in team settings, Asana shines bright. With a clean interface and robust features, it’s perfect for tracking team progress, delegating tasks, and ensuring that every team member is aligned towards a solution.

Trello aids in visualizing tasks, thereby bringing clarity to the problem-solving process.

MindMeister is invaluable for brainstorming and dissecting complex challenges.

Evernote ensures all your notes and research are organized and easily accessible.

Slack fosters effective communication, making collaborative problem-solving a breeze.

Coursera empowers individuals with knowledge, a cornerstone of the solutions oriented approach.

Asana is perfect for managing larger projects, ensuring everyone is in sync and geared towards a solution.

The Perks Of Being Solutions Oriented

Opting for a solutions oriented approach isn’t just a productive move; it’s transformative. While it’s evident that this approach offers an effective way to navigate challenges, the perks of a solution oriented leader and team extend beyond just problem-solving. They permeate various aspects of personal and professional life, creating ripples of positive change. Let’s delve into the multifaceted benefits of being a solutions oriented leader.

Boosted Confidence & Self-Efficacy:

When you consistently focus on finding creative solutions and witness your strategies turning into successful business outcomes, it naturally boosts your confidence. You start believing in your abilities, cultivating a sense of self-efficacy. This isn’t just about feeling good; it’s about knowing that you possess the skills and mindset to tackle challenges head-on.

Enhanced Resilience & Adaptability:

Challenges are inevitable. However, a solutions oriented approach equips you with resilience. When faced with setbacks, instead of succumbing to frustration, you see them as temporary roadblocks. This mindset fosters adaptability, allowing you to pivot and modify your strategies based on evolving circumstances.

Strengthened Collaborative Skills:

A solutions oriented lead individual understands the value of collaboration. By seeking diverse perspectives, brainstorming, and pooling together collective expertise, a team and solutions become more robust and holistic. This collaborative approach to leadership not only resolves challenges but also fosters a culture of teamwork and mutual respect.

Increased Value in Professional Settings:

In the corporate world, problem solvers are invaluable. By consistently showcasing a solutions oriented approach, you position yourself as an asset. Leaders and peers recognize and appreciate individuals who can transform challenges into opportunities, leading to career advancements and growth opportunities.

Promotion of Continuous Learning:

Being solutions oriented often means you’re on the lookout for knowledge, resources and skills that can aid in crafting solutions. This inherent curiosity and drive promote a culture of continuous learning, ensuring you remain updated, relevant, and ever-evolving, both personally and professionally.

Reduction of Stress & Anxiety:

Dwelling on problems can be mentally taxing, leading to increased stress and anxiety. However, when you shift your focus to developing solutions yourself, it brings clarity and a sense of purpose. Knowing that you’re taking proactive steps to address challenges can significantly reduce feelings of overwhelm and helplessness.

Inspiration to Others:

Your approach to challenges doesn’t just benefit you; it serves as an inspiration to others. By modeling a solutions oriented mindset, you motivate those around you to adopt similar strategies, creating a ripple effect of positive problem-solving.

A solutions oriented approach cultivates confidence and a belief in one’s abilities.

It fosters resilience and the ability to adapt to changing scenarios.

Enhances teamwork and collaboration, making problem-solving a collective effort.

Positions you as a valuable asset in professional environments, paving the way for growth.

Champions continuous learning , ensuring personal and professional evolution.

Acts as a buffer against stress, promoting mental well-being.

Serves as an inspiration, motivating others to become solution seekers.

FAQ – Unraveling the Solutions Oriented Approach

Navigating the world with a solutions oriented mindset can be a rewarding journey, but like any paradigm shift, it comes with its own set of queries. Here are some frequently asked questions to provide deeper insights and clarity.

Isn’t focusing solely on solutions too simplistic?

No, it’s not about oversimplifying problems. A solutions oriented approach encourages diving deep into challenges to understand their intricacies. It’s about shifting focus from merely highlighting issues to actively brainstorm solutions more problems and seeking ways to resolve and solve whatever problem arises from them, ensuring a balanced perspective that acknowledges complexity while seeking resolution.

How can I differentiate between being solutions oriented and just being optimistic?

While both traits can overlap, they are distinct. Being optimistic means maintaining a positive outlook regardless of circumstances. A solutions oriented individual, on the other hand, couples this positive outlook with actionable strategies. They don’t just hope for the best; they actively work towards the best outcome.

Are there situations where this approach might not be ideal?

Every approach has its context. While a solutions oriented mindset is beneficial in many workplace scenarios, there are moments, especially in personal or emotional situations with clients, where simply listening and empathizing is more appropriate than immediately jumping to solutions.

How do I deal with individuals who are resistant to solutions?

Resistance can stem from fear, skepticism, or past experiences. It’s essential to communicate effectively with leaders, empathize with their concerns, provide feedback, and sometimes even showcase small wins or proofs of concept to build trust and demonstrate the viability of proposed solutions.

Can this approach be taught or is it innate?

While some individuals might naturally gravitate towards problem-solving, a solutions oriented approach can definitely be cultivated. Through practices like continuous learning, seeking feedback, and fostering resilience, anyone can develop and hone this mindset.

How does one avoid getting overwhelmed when seeking solutions?

It’s crucial to break challenges down into smaller, manageable parts. Tackling each aspect step by step not only makes the process less daunting but also allows for clearer, more targeted solutions.

Is it possible to be too solutions oriented?

Balance is key. While being proactive is commendable, hastily jumping to solutions without fully understanding a problem can be counterproductive. It’s essential to strike a balance between analysis and action.

How can I measure the effectiveness of my solutions oriented approach?

Feedback is invaluable. Regularly seek feedback from peers, superiors, or those affected by your solutions. Additionally, self-reflection and tracking the tangible outcomes of your strategies can provide insights into areas of improvement.

Can this mindset be applied to personal challenges as well?

Absolutely! From personal development goals to interpersonal relationships, a solutions oriented approach can offer clarity, direction, and constructive strategies to navigate challenges.

Are there any risks associated with this approach?

Like any approach, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution faster this. There might be instances where a proposed solution doesn’t pan out as expected. It’s essential to be adaptable, learn from such experiences, and iterate your solution accordingly.

The solutions oriented approach is not about oversimplification but rather a shift in focus towards actionable strategies.

It differs from mere optimism by coupling a positive outlook with actionable steps.

This mindset is flexible and can be applied in a variety of situations, both personal and professional.

It can be cultivated, and continuous feedback and reflection are vital to its effectiveness.

Balance is key; understanding problems thoroughly before proposing solutions is crucial.

As we’ve journeyed forward through the facets of a solutions oriented mindset, it’s evident that this is not merely a methodology but a transformative way of living. Embracing such an approach reshapes the way we perceive challenges, turning them into opportunities waiting to be unlocked.

Historically, humankind’s greatest advancements have stemmed from an innate desire to explore and find solutions. From the wheel to the World Wide Web, our legacy is paved with examples of transcending barriers through innovative solutions. And while the scale of these solutions varies, the underlying principle remains constant: a focused drive to better our circumstances.

But why does this solution oriented approach resonate so deeply? For one, it provides a sense of purpose. In a world inundated with challenges, both big and small, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed. However, a solutions oriented mindset reframes these challenges, giving us a mission and a sense of direction. Instead of being bogged down by problems, we become architects of change, actively crafting strategies to improve our world.

Moreover, this mindset fosters personal growth. Every time we face a challenge with a solutions oriented approach, we grow — in skills, knowledge, and character. We learn the art of resilience, the power of collaboration, and the value of continuous learning. It’s a journey of self-improvement, where every challenge faced is a lesson learned.

Additionally, this approach transcends the personal sphere. By being solutions oriented, we inspire those around us. It’s contagious. Teams work more cohesively, communities come together, and positive change becomes a collaborative whole team effort.

In essence, adopting a solutions and solution oriented leadership mindset is akin to lighting a beacon in the face of adversity. It illuminates paths that might otherwise remain obscured. It offers hope, not just through hollow optimism, for example, but through actionable strategies that promise to lead to tangible change.

As you move forward, armed with this newfound understanding, remember: challenges are but puzzles waiting to be solved. And with a solutions oriented approach, you hold the pieces that can craft the future into a brighter, more promising picture for future you.

Compare hundreds of HR Management Software in our Software Marketplace

Discover the best software tools for your business, our recommended apps.

EffortlessHR is easy to use, comprehensive online HR...

DocStar offers a comprehensive suite of document management...

HR Partner is a simple, all-inclusive online HR...

Remote empowers companies of all sizes to pay...

peopleHum is a global Codie Award-winning end-to-end HR...

Freshteam is the smart HR software for growing...

HROne is an intelligent & interactive mobile-first employee...

"In order to be irreplaceable, one must always...

PeopleSpheres is the next-generation People Platform built to...

BizMerlin is the leading, award-winning cloud-based Human Resource...

HR Services for Small Business: Finding the Right Solution

What are hr services for small business? HR services for small businesses include payroll, recruitment, employee management, benefits administration, compliance, training, and performance management solutions.

Team Outing Ideas : Boost Your Next Company Event Now

What is a team outing? A team outing is an organized event where colleagues engage in recreational activities together to build camaraderie and enhance teamwork.

Can a Sole Proprietor Have Employees?

Can a sole proprietor have employees ? Yes, sole proprietors can hire employees, but they must follow specific legal requirements, such as obtaining an EIN

Strategic Interview Questions to Ask Candidates: A Comprehensive Guide

What are strategic interview questions to ask candidates ? Strategic interview questions probe skills, fit, and potential, focusing on problem-solving, adaptability, and alignment with company

Privacy Overview

How to take a solution-oriented approach to resolving problems

[email protected]

Employees expect leaders to solve problems both big and small. But a leader’s attention will be focused on issues of significance (financial crises, unexpected mergers, and acquisitions), which means medium-sized problems are often put aside, to return later with a vengeance! As Noble Peace Prize winner and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, “All too frequently a problem evaded is a crisis invited”.

Great leaders don’t play the blame game. Instead they use a “solution-oriented” approach to resolve problems.

They use the why lens. Highly respected leaders only solve problems within their control. Ones connected to their biggest why. They consider problems from a fundamental point of view.

· Is this our problem?

· Why should we solve this problem?

· What happens if we don’t?

· How would the solution contribute to accomplishing our most important goals?

Once they have answers, they explore solutions. Around 2013, Royal Philips in Amsterdam noticed the lighting market was stagnating. CEO Frans van Houten asked those types of questions. Armed with the answers, he concluded it would not make sense for Philips to continue with lighting. Philips now focuses on healthcare technology. By approaching problems through the why lens, van Houten was able to change the direction of the company and keep it operable. A clear benefit of applying solution-oriented problem solving.

They are inspired by problems. Without problems, a business will lose its fire, passion, and dynamism. While many leaders perceive problems as distracters, first-class leaders embrace problems as opportunities to make breakthroughs. Leaders know that if they are unable to solve the problem their competitors will, pushing them out of the market.

Problems fuel great leaders, providing opportunities to learn and grow to the next level. Great leaders don’t say, “Why me?” or “Why now?”. They say, “Try me” or “Let’s make the most of it.”. The greater the problem, the hungrier they are for a solution. Leaders like Richard Branson, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates view problems as golden opportunities to disrupt the market and revolutionize the customer experience.

They openly admit there is a problem. Great leaders acknowledge there is a problem and demonstrate the severity of the problem and the benefit of the solution to stakeholders, partners, and shareholders. By establishing an open environment, great leaders avoid creating silos. This way, the leader not only takes responsibility for making the problem transparent, they explore different dimensions of the problem, consequently benefiting from others’ ideas.

They separate problems from people. Great leaders separate problems from people. They ask questions until they understand the issue. A clear understanding of a problem delivers two-thirds of the solution. When people attribute blame, highly qualified leaders focus on the problem at hand, keeping emotions controlled. By doing so, they can approach the situation fairly and find a suitable solution.

They have a plan. Great leaders do not guess. They identify the core of the problem, forecast scenarios, and produce backup plans before formulating and sharing with stakeholders. This creates the trust and commitment necessary for implementation. They assess actions and adjust whenever necessary. By analyzing, they focus on the easiest implementation route and work around any blocks standing in the way.

Top leaders make sure their organization stands steady when in crisis. They create a thorough problem-solving process. Great leaders avoid panic at all costs. They remain cool and retain a sense of humor. They know if they panic, their team members will lose hope and motivation.

They engage those affected by the problem. Those who have a stake in the problem and the relevant solution often know the most. Solution-oriented leaders listen to the needs and concerns of all involved parties. When respected by the majority, leaders have buy-in and are able to focus on solutions. This caring attitude helps them build great relationships. When the relationship is good, people are prepared to walk that extra mile for their leaders.

Great leaders create an environment where team members can freely share their views without feeling insecure about their position. It is the leader’s responsibility to guarantee freedom to speak up without fear of negative consequences.

They don’t point fingers. Great leaders know that finger pointing does not solve problems. It only adds new ones. It makes employees singled out feel broken, guilty, and belittled. Instead of blaming anyone, the leader starts problem solving by narrowing down the issue. When the problem has been addressed, and potentially solved, they ask their team members what they learned from the experience and how they can improve vulnerable areas.

Now examine how you approach problems. What are the first things you do when you encounter a severe problem? What can you take away from the above to ensure your future approach to problem solving is more solution-oriented?

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Personality traits and complex problem solving: personality disorders and their effects on complex problem-solving ability.

• 1 College of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences and Research, Salzburg, Austria
• 2 Department of Psychology, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany
• 3 Department of Psychology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria
• 4 Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Paracelsus Medical Private University, Salzburg, Austria
• 5 Institute of Synergetics and Psychotherapy Research, Paracelsus Medical Private University, Salzburg, Austria

Complex problem solving (CPS) can be interpreted as the number of psychological mechanisms that allow us to reach our targets in difficult situations, that can be classified as complex, dynamic, non-transparent, interconnected, and multilayered, and also polytelic. The previous results demonstrated associations between the personality dimensions neuroticism, conscientiousness, and extraversion and problem-solving performance. However, there are no studies dealing with personality disorders in connection with CPS skills. Therefore, the current study examines a clinical sample consisting of people with personality and/or depressive disorders. As we have data for all the potential personality disorders and also data from each patient regarding to potential depression, we meet the whole range from healthy to impaired for each personality disorder and for depression. We make use of a unique operationalization: CPS was surveyed in a simulation game, making use of the microworld approach. This study was designed to investigate the hypothesis that personality traits are related to CPS performance. Results show that schizotypal, histrionic, dependent, and depressive persons are less likely to successfully solve problems, while persons having the additional behavioral characteristics of resilience, action orientation, and motivation for creation are more likely to successfully solve complex problems.

Introduction

A problem arises when a person is unable to reach the desired goal. Problem-solving refers to the cognitive activities aimed at removing the obstacle separating the present situation from the target situation ( Betsch et al., 2011 ). In our daily lives, we are constantly confronted with new challenges and a plethora of possibilities to address them. Accordingly, problem-solving requires the ability to identify these possibilities and select the best option in the unfamiliar situations. It is, therefore, an important competence to deal with new conditions, adapt to changing circumstances, and react flexibly to new challenges ( Kipman, 2020 ).

Even tasks for which the sequence of choices to be taken is relatively straight-forward, such as in the process of navigating to a certain destination in a foreign city or cooperative decision-making during psychotherapy, appear as a highly diversified process, when considered in detail ( Schiepek, 2009 ; Schiepek et al., 2016a ). However, most problems we face in everyday life are not as well defined and do not necessarily have an unambiguous solution. The ability to deal with such sophisticated problems, i.e., complex problem solving (CPS) , is of particular relevance in everyday settings.

Funke (2001 , 2003 , 2012) and Dörner and Funke (2017) , identified five dimensions along which complex problems can be characterized: (i) The complexity of the problem arises from the number of variables contributing to the problem, which in turn affect the number of possible solutions. (ii) The connectivity of the problem arises from the number of interconnections between these variables. (iii) The dynamics of the problem arise from changes in the problem variables or their interconnections over time. These changes can be a result of the person’s actions or are inherent to the problem, i.e., characteristics of the variables themselves or a result of interactions between the variables. (iv) The non-transparency of a problem refers to the extent to which the target situation, the variables involved, their interactions and dynamics cannot be ascertained. (v) Finally, complex problems are usually polytelic , i.e., they have more than one target situation.

Accordingly, CPS requires the ability to model the problem space, i.e., understand which variables are involved and how they are interconnected, the ability to handle a large number of variables at the same time, judge the relevance and success probability of possibilities, identify the interconnections between variables and the inherent dynamics thereof, judge the consequences of one’s own actions with regards to the problem space, and collect relevant knowledge to deal with non-transparency.

Tasks to measure this complex set of abilities were developed by Dörner (1980 , 1986) , who criticized that the measurement of general intelligence tended to use simple tasks that are not comparable with the level of complexity of real-world problems. He proposed measuring intelligent behavior in computerized environments specifically adapted to simulate the properties of sophisticated problems in everyday settings ( Danner et al., 2011b ). cf. Dörner et al. (1983) in research used settings referred to as Microworlds to assess the way participants acted under heterogeneous, dynamic, and non-transparent conditions. Participants were instructed to administrate a tiny German village by the name of Lohhausen by creating the ideal conditions for the village and its inhabitants ( Hussy, 1998 , p. 140–141). This microworld comprised more than 2,000 variables, guaranteeing an elevated level of complexity, which also required a high-level operationalization of CPS. However, the general validity of the performance at Lohhausen turned out to be a questionable issue, since the performance was operationalized as a factor composed of 6 main criteria, some of which were subjective assessments. Accordingly, the parameter definition for CPS performance was rather ambiguous. The reason for this ambiguity is that the vague description of the objective, i.e., to establish a respectable standard of well-being among the inhabitants—gave room for subjective interpretation (cf. Hussy, 1998 , p. 146–150). Since then, the psychometric validity of the CPS performance in complex microworlds has been demonstrated by several researchers (e.g., Wittmann and Hattrup, 2004 ; Danner et al., 2011a ).

Because of the high-translational relevance of the topic, the question arises how and which individual differences contribute to more or less efficient solving of the complex problems, such as Microworlds. Individual differences in problem-solving have been described along a cognitive dimension, i.e., the problem-solving style , and an emotional–motivational dimension, i.e., the problem orientation ( D’Zurilla et al., 2011 ). Cognitively, problems can be solved in a rational style , i.e., systematically and deliberate, in an impulsive style , i.e., careless, hurried, and often incomplete, or in an avoidance style via passivity and inaction leading to procrastination ( D’Zurilla et al., 2002 , as cited in D’Zurilla et al., 2011 ). Emotionally, people with a positive problem orientation , see problems as an opportunity for success, i.e., a “challenge” and are confident that the problem is solvable, and that they will be able to solve it. People with a negative problem orientation view problems as an opportunity for failure, i.e., a “threat” and doubt their ability to solve the problem ( D’Zurilla et al., 2011 ).

Some studies have already related basic personality traits, such as the BIG-5, to the way a person tackles complex problems. For example, it has been demonstrated that individuals who score high in conscientiousness, openness for experience, and extraversion also have higher problem-solving abilities. In contrast, individuals with higher scores in neuroticism show poor problem-solving abilities ( D’Zurilla et al., 2011 ). McMurran et al. (2001) demonstrate that this is a result of the way in which neurotic individuals approach problems. Neuroticisms was significantly associated with an impulsive or avoidant problem-solving style, and a negative problem orientation. Vice versa, Arslan (2016) identified a positive relationship between constructive problem-solving and being extrovert, receptive, and open to new learning experiences, and also high in tolerability and accountability.

The present study seeks to extend these findings to individuals with “extreme” levels of personality traits, i.e., individuals with personality disorders, taking into consideration the way in which personality characteristics manifest in everyday situations, such as work–place situations. Following the most current diagnostic approach to personality disorders as outlined in the ICD-11, the individual accentuations of 9 disorder-relevant personality traits were taken into account, including:

(i) Paranoid traits , i.e., the extent of mistrust toward others.

(ii) Schizoid traits , i.e., the inability to express feelings and experience pleasure, resulting in fierce separation from affective contacts and also friends and social gatherings with an excessive preference for the magical worlds.

(iii) Antisocial traits , i.e., the extent of disregard for social obligations and callous lack of involvement in feelings for others, resulting in aggressive behavior.

(iv) Borderline traits , i.e., the tendency to act out impulses without regard to consequences, associated with unpredictable and erratic moods.

(v) Histrionic traits , i.e., the tendency to overdramatize and show a theatrical, exaggerated expression of feelings, suggestibility, egocentricity, hedonism, and a constant desire for recognition, external stimuli, and attention.

(vi) Dependent traits , i.e., excessive and inappropriate agreeableness ( Costa and McCrae, 1986 ) resulting in major anxiety about separation, feelings of helplessness, and a tendency to subordinate oneself to the desires of others.

(vii) Schizotypal traits , i.e., extreme levels of introversion, resulting in social disengagement.

(viii) Obsessive-compulsive (anankastic) traits , i.e., excessive conscientiousness, involving feelings of doubt, perfectionism, and inflexibility.

(ix) Depressive traits , i.e., the tendency toward persistent feelings of sadness and loss of interest.

Few studies have assessed problem-solving, much less CPS, in patients with personality disorders. Previous research shows, that patients with histrionic and narcissistic personality types show an impulsive problem-solving style, whereas avoidant and dependent individuals show a negative problem orientation ( McMurran et al., 2007 ). In addition, people who are in a depressive mood ( Lyubomirsky et al., 1999 ), or even clinically depressed and anxious have difficulties generating effective solutions to problems ( Marx et al., 1992 ). Accordingly, we hypothesize a negative association between high accentuations of disorder-related personality traits and CPS. The aim of the present study was to explore, which disorders were most severely affected and whether this association also manifested in work-related situations.

Action-orientated problem-solving is particularly required in areas where people are under a lot of stress, for example, in entrepreneurship, team leading in the clinical settings, or firefighting. Especially when a work-related crisis appears, action-oriented problem-solving is important, because it unites handling both novel and routine demands ( Rudolph and Repenning, 2002 , as cited in Rudolph et al., 2009 ). Rudolph et al. (2009) found that only by taking action, information cues become available. Accordingly, both CPS and everyday situations in the work-place require the ability to cope with stressful events and protect oneself from the negative effects of stress, i.e., resilience ( Lee and Cranford, 2008 , as cited in Wagnild and Young, 1993 ; Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013 ). Indeed, individuals with a high trait resilience are more willing to take action in problem-solving ( Li and Yang, 2009 , as cited in Li et al., 2013 ). This is consistent with previous research demonstrating that effective problem-solving abilities go along with high-psychological resilience ( Garcia-Dia et al., 2013 ; Williamson et al., 2013 ; Crowther et al., 2016 , as cited in Pinar et al., 2018 ). Pinar et al. (2018) even found that problem-solving competencies can be increased by increasing psychological resilience and self-confidence levels. Accordingly, identifying which personality disorders are most severely affected in these areas may also provide hints for psychotherapy.

Materials and methods

Participants.

The present study included data from N = 242 adults (49.1% male) with personality disorders and/or depressive disorders, with ages ranging from 17 to 48 years (mean: 26.5 years). The participants were given five assessment batteries and a set of demographic variables, which included game experience. They were also given a commercial complex problem-solving (CPS) game known as Cities: Skylines involving the construction and managing of a city like a mayor would with the goal of growing the city while not running out of money. Participants were patients from psychiatric and psychosomatic hospitals, who got follow-up treatment directly after leaving the hospital. The treatment took place in a panel practice for aftercare where the CPS experiment was done (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. Exemplary model of some (not all) factors that influence the number of inhabitants and the general happiness of the population in Cities: Skylines (CSL). The number of related variables illustrates the complexity, connectivity, and polytely in the simulated environment.

Personality questionnaires

In order to obtain a comprehensive diagnosis and measure disordered personality traits in a continuous fashion, three personality questionnaires were used, including the PSSI, SCID-5-PD, and MMPI-II. While the PSSI scores were used in the statistical analysis, SCID-5-PD scores and MMPI-II scores were used to confirm the PSSI diagnosis. Furthermore, in order to assess the manifestation of disordered personality traits in work-related situations, we used the BIP.

The Persönlichkeits-Stil und Störungs-Inventar (PSSI; Kuhl and Kazen, 2009 ) is a self-report instrument that measures the comparative manifestation of the character traits. These are designed as non-pathological analogs of the personality disorders described in the psychiatric diagnostic manuals DSM-IV and ICD-10. The PSSI comprises 140 items assigned to 14 scales: PN (willful-paranoid), SZ (independent-schizoid), ST (intuitive-schizotypal), BL (impulsive-borderline), HI (agreeable-histrionic), NA (ambitious-narcissistic), SU (self-critical-avoidant), AB (loyal-dependent), ZW (conscientious-compulsive—anankastic), NT (critical-negativistic), DP (calm-depressive), SL (helpful-selfless), RH (optimistic-rhapsodic), and AS (self-assertive-antisocial). Patients rate each item on a 4-point Likert scale (from 0 to 3) and continuous scale values are calculated as the sum of the 10 item ratings belonging to a scale. Accordingly, a maximum value of 30 can be achieved for each scale. In this study, we focused on the nine traits PN, SZ, ST, BL, HI, AB, ZW, DP, and AS, as the other measured traits are not listed as personality disorders in the ICD-10 or DSM-V.

The Strukturiertes Klinisches Interview für DSM-5—Persönlichkeitsstörungen (SCID-5-PD; First et al., 2019 ) is a semi-structured diagnostic questionnaire that can be used to evaluate the 10 personality disorders included in the DSM-5 in clusters A, B, and C, as well as disorders in the category “not otherwise specified personality disorder.” Each DSM-5 criterion is assigned corresponding interview questions to assist the interviewer in assessing the criterion. It is possible to utilize the SCID-5-PD to categorically diagnose personality disorders (present or absent) ( First et al., 2019 ). In addition, regulations are also included which can be used to create dimensional ratings.

The MMPI ® –2 ( Butcher et al., 2000 ) is a revised and completely re-normed version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). With the help of the MMPI ® –2, a relatively complete picture of the personality structure can be obtained in an economical way.

The Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung (BIP; Hossiep and Paschen, 2019 ) measures personality traits in a work-related context. A total of 210 items are assigned to 4 global dimensions including 14 subscales. These include work orientation (diligence, agility, and focus), professional approach ( performance-, creativity-, and management motivation), social competencies (sensitivity, social skills, sociability, teamwork, and assertiveness), and mental constitution (emotional stability, resilience, and self-confidence) on a continuous scale. Patients respond to each item on a 6-point Likert scale.

Game experience

As possible previous experience with the CPS game may affect the level of problem-solving efficiency during the test, participants were asked to rate their previous engagement with simulation-based urban development games on a 4-point Likert scale with response options running from “none” to “very much.” The same poll also featured a listing of 20 symbols from Cities: Skylines, in combination with their meanings (e.g., “no electricity”) for participants to make use of during their quest. At the end, participants were asked to rate their experience based on a 5-point scaling reaching from 1 (extremely simple) to 5 (super challenging). At last, the researcher also marked on each poll sheet, whether (a) the individual patient was able to accomplish the mission (Success, Failure, or Patient Breakup), and (b) the exact time frame of the testing session (morning, afternoon, or evening).

Cities: Skylines (CSL)

The computer-based simulation game Cities: Skylines ( Paradox Interactive, 2015a ), which can be downloaded from Steam for about 30 dollars, explores the construction and management of a city and was implemented in the current study as a Microworld scenario. Much like in the successful microworld Lohhausen ( Dörner et al., 1983 ), gamers in Cities: Skylines basically act in lieu of the city’s mayor, taking over all of his authority and duties. As promised in the user manual, it “offers endless sandbox play in a city that keeps offering new areas, resources, and technologies to explore, continually presenting the player with new challenges to overcome” ( Paradox Interactive, 2015b , p. 4). The game fulfills the parameters of Brehmer and Dörner’s (1993) microworlds and meets the standards of complex problems according to Funke ’s ( 2001; 2012 ). The examples below illustrate the way in which these features are relevant for Cities: Skylines (see Figure 2 ; see also de Kooter, 2015 ; Paradox Interactive, 2015b ):

Figure 2. Procedure of the study.

(i) Complexity is fulfilled because the system is made up of a variety of components including a vast series of different constructions (areas, basic resources, roads, constructions, electricity, water supplies, etc.), options (fiscal matters, budgeting, credit, traffic management, security, healthcare, and education), and parameters (population density, inhabitant satisfaction, environmental issues, and delinquency). As an example, while purchasing a wind turbine, the participant may weigh related costs, budgeted funds for the week, potential noise pollution, the way the turbine blends into the landscape vs. the rate of efficiency, along with the hardware required to connect the device to the town’s existing network, etc.

(ii) Connectivity is fulfilled because the parameters in the model are heavily interconnected. Each component is related to at least one other element (see Figure 2 ) implementing a network of correlations and interdependencies. As an example, residential zones should not be located in proximity to wind turbines, as the amount of noise pollution caused by their operation might affect the quality of life in that zone, which again might make the area less attractive and lower the property values.

(iii) Dynamics are fulfilled because the demands of the population are subject to autonomous change, while other variables, e.g., zoning requirements also depend in part on the actions of the participants. While the dynamics of the game cause the population and the territory of the city to grow, the whole infrastructure becomes inadequate over time and needs to be adapted. Water and electricity infrastructures, the number of schools, clinics, municipal cemeteries, etc., that used to suffice for the population then need to be expanded. Moreover, depending on its frequentation, each building or road has a certain life span until it is left abandoned and will have to be replaced.

(iv) Non-transparency is not featured as an essential part of the Cities: Skylines gameplay, but is instead primarily caused by its connectivity and intricacy. While playing the game, the number of variables and their interconnections make active exploration essential. Independent of the player’s actions; however, there are also very non-transparent features, such as random death waves or an (unexpectedly) higher incidence of fires in the area following the first construction of a firefighter center by the player.

(v) Polytely arises since the objective to increase the population of the city requires the simultaneous achievement of a large number of minor tasks, which may be conflicting (e.g., strategic allocation of bus stops for both students and employees). The situation is further complicated by unforeseen complications (e.g., water pollution causing disease spread), which force the player to abandon his/her ongoing task and give full attention to the new issue. The source of the problem must be evaluated while new strategies for potential solutions are weighed against proven approaches. For the current research, each patient was provided with identical settings, including a sizeable, completely functional city with a number of 2,600 residents, 50,000 game money points, and a general population satisfaction level of 90%. Their subsequent task was to boost the population of the cities to 5,000 residents while making sure that the residents were not poorly (as measured by an average satisfaction level of at least 75%) and the bank balance remained positive. On the contrary, the task was left unaccomplished if (a) the population of the urban areas dropped to 1,000, (b) the balance of the account dropped to 0, or (c) the maximum game time of 120 min had elapsed. Patients received the tip, that it was necessary to set priorities and focus on the mission.

Based on the task of raising the number of inhabitants of the city, a parameter of CPS performance was calculated as the average growth of the population relative to the target size of 5,000:

Gamers were instructed not to modify the time settings during the game, to allow for comparable measurements across participants.

Given that the participants were patients from psychiatric and psychosomatic hospitals, many of them lacked game experience. To increase test fairness between patients with different levels of game experience, all the participants were provided with a brief introduction on how to handle a list of fundamental game features:

• placement of streets, buildings, water pumps, and wind turbines;

• positioning of roads, structures, water pipes, and turbines;

• division of zones (housing, businesses, and industries/offices zones) and the mode of bulldozing;

• structural survey of power, water lines, and waste collection;

• search for the info stats to view the requirements of the residents;

Statistical analysis

For all the statistical analyses, SPSS version 26.0 (2020) was used.

On the basis of the ICD-11 definition, the personality traits were not analyzed categorically (as before), but dimensionally. To relate the expression of currently recognized personality disorders to performance in CPS, we used correlation analyses between CPS performance and the 9 scale scores of the PSSI (verified by the SCID and MMPI-2) and also the 4 overall dimensions of the BIP. Given the high number of resulting correlations, p -values could be misleading because of the multiple testing. Accordingly, we identified relevant personality traits for CPS using (i) The Bonferonni-correction of p -values and (ii) an effect sizes cut-off of r > 0.25.

In a second step, we explored, which facets of the BIP contributed to the associations with CPS performance in order to get a more fine-grained picture of possible effects.

In sum, we sought to identify the strongest predictors of CPS performance using 3 multivariate regression models with the 9 clinical traits, controlling for gender in the 2nd model and additional game experience in the 3rd model.

Table 1 lists the experience with urban planning simulation games in the current sample. About 50% of the patients rated the game as “easy” or “rather easy,” 37.5% rated it as “not easy but also not difficult” and 12.6% responded that the game was “difficult” or “very difficult.”

Table 1. Experience of the sample ( N = 242, N = 210 valid answers).

Correlation analyses show that CPS performance was negatively related to schizotypal ( r = −0.46), histrionic ( r = −0.44), and depressive ( r = −0.46) personality accentuations. The higher the expression in any of these areas, the higher the probability of failing in CPS. Effect sizes (: = r ) were > 0.40 for each of these traits (compare Table 2 ). Furthermore, CPS-performance was negatively correlated with the dependent ( r = −0.29) and paranoid ( r = −0.25) personality traits, but coefficients were much lower and therefore of less practical relevance as for schizotypical, histrionic, and depressive traits. Schizoid ( r = 0.04), borderline ( r = 0.17), anankastic ( r = −0.05), and anti-social ( r = −0.04) traits were not significantly associated with the CPS (see Table 3 ).

Table 2. Correlations of CPS and personality disorders with work-related personality manifestations as assessed with the BIP.

Table 3. Correlations between personality traits and CPS performance.

Regarding the work-related manifestations of the personality traits, CPS-performance was positively associated with the overall BIP dimensions of work orientation ( r = 0.27), professional orientation ( r = 0.34), and psychological constitution ( r = 0.25), but negatively with the overall BIP dimension social competencies ( r = −0.25). In order to explore these associations further, CPS performance and personality disorders were related to the sub-facet scores of the BIP (see Table 2 ).

Professional orientation was also negatively correlated with depressive traits ( r = −0.40), the psychological constitution was negatively correlated with borderline traits (−0.38), dependent traits (−0.31), and with depressive traits (−0.26).

The results demonstrate that particularly the facets resilience, action orientation, and motivation for creation were positively correlated with successful problem-solving, while sociability and CPS were significantly negatively correlated. The higher the resilience, action orientation and motivation for creation and the lower the sociability, the better was the CPS performance. When we take Bonferroni correction into account, also conscientiousness and motivation for leadership (italic in the table) were negatively correlated with the CPS performance.

Interestingly, the associations between personality disorders and work-related personality expressions were moderate. The strongest associations arose for resilience, which was negatively associated with several personality disorders, particularly, borderline, histrionic, and dependent traits. Focusing on the traits that showed the strongest impairment in CPS, schizotypal traits were associated with high sociability ( r = 0.36) and to a lesser extent with low-action orientation ( r = −0.22), which in turn related to low-CPS performance. Histrionic traits were related to low resilience ( r = −0.28), which in turn related to low-CPS performance. Depressive traits were related to low motivation for creation ( r = −0.25), and also low-leadership motivation ( r = −0.34) and to a lesser extent low-achievement motivation ( r = −0.21), low-action orientation ( r = −0.20), and low resilience ( r = −0.24), which in turn is related to low-CPS performance.

In a combined model with all 9 personality traits (adjusted R 2 = 36.7%), we confirmed that histrionic traits have the biggest negative impact on CPS performance (β = −0.351), followed by schizotypical (β = −0.312) and depressive traits (β = −0.303). Also, in the multiple regression model, dependent and paranoid traits are negatively related to CPS performance. If gender is the part of the model and held constant in a model containing the 9 traits, histrionic traits still have a significant and practical relevant impact of β′ = −0.325. (Condition Index = 24). The same holds true when also taking game experience into account (β″ = −0.319) see Table 4 .

Table 4. Combined regression model, β′: controlling for gender, β″ controlling for gender and game experience.

(Condition Index checking for possible multicollinearity is moderate with CI = 22, 36, so multicollinearity is moderately given, βs are, therefore, interpretable, p -values can be slightly biased, βs with 0.3 and higher found in this model for the 3 traits have for certain a significant and practically relevant impact).

The present study examined the influences of personality traits on the CPS performance in a clinical sample of individuals with a range of different psychiatric diagnoses. The aim of this empirical analysis was to extend previous research on individual differences in CPS to extreme personality traits as observed in personality disorders, and also their manifestation in work-related situations. We explored, which personality dimensions were most strongly associated with impairments in the CPS.

With regards to the clinical personality dimensions (i.e., dimensionally defined personality disorders), statistical analyses revealed that schizotypal, histrionic, dependent, and depressive personality traits were associated negatively with the participants’ performances in the given CPS task (consistent with, e.g., McMurran et al., 2007 ). Previous findings on these relationships were, therefore, further confirmed, specifically in showing that subjects with high levels of depressiveness and anxiety seemed to have more difficulties in finding and executing effective solutions to the given complex problems (e.g., see Marx et al., 1992 ; Lyubomirsky et al., 1999 ).

Unsurprisingly, no single clinical personality structure was associated with better problem-solving performances (as compared with the non-clinical trait levels). As personality disorders are generally linked with increased levels of neuroticism, which subsequently was consistently found to negatively influence problem-solving (e.g., McMurran et al., 2001 ; D’Zurilla et al., 2011 ), this result is also consistent with the general clinical intuition. But, contrary to the previous findings ( D’Zurilla et al., 2011 ), conscientiousness had no significant impact on CPS performance in this sample.

Further analyses gave deeper insights into relationships that were found in the first part of the data analyses. They are especially allowed to draw conclusions for the clinical patients. It was found that higher levels of resilience (consistent with, e.g., Garcia-Dia et al., 2013 ; Williamson et al., 2013 ; Crowther et al., 2016 , as cited in Li and Yang, 2009 ; Pinar et al., 2018 , as cited in Li et al., 2013 ), action orientation, and motivation for creation (e.g., see Eseryel et al., 2014 ) positively influenced the problem-solving performance as additional behavioral characteristics . This indicates that, even for high levels of usually negative personality traits, a person’s ability to successfully solve problems will not be impaired automatically if the person is also very resilient to the effects of negative events and highly action-oriented and motivated when facing problems. Hence, this interpretation is consistent with the conclusions of a study by Güss et al. (2017) , who found that more approach-oriented individuals outperformed avoidance-oriented participants in the complex problems. In this way, these positive traits act against the negative impact of otherwise impairing personality traits or even disorders. Interestingly, sociability was found to have a negative influence on the participants’ performances, while no significant influences on social skills, team orientation, or self-confidence were found. Therefore, it seems to be more comprehensible why some of us deal easily with complex problems and can manage things forward-looking while others do not succeed in making good decisions.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

UK was the main author, did all calculations, research to and wrote the article. SB did the programming of the microworlds and all technical support. MW did the review on the introduction and discussion part. WA and GS served as a consultant. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Acknowledgments

We thank Martina Mathur and Belinda Pletzer for proofreading and translating.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Arslan, C. (2016). Interpersonal problem solving, self-compassion and personality traits in university students. Educ. Res. Rev. 11, 474–481. doi: 10.5897/ERR2015.2605

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Betsch, T., Funke, J., and PLessner, H. (2011). Denken - urteilen, entscheiden, problemlösen . Berlin: Springer.

Google Scholar

Brehmer, B., and Dörner, D. (1993). Experiments with computer-simulated microworlds: Escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 9, 171–184. doi: 10.1016/0747-5632(93)90005-D

Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., and Kaemmer, B. (2000). Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory ® -2. Bern: Huber.

Costa, P. T., and McCrae, R. R. (1986). Personality stability and its implications for clincal psychology. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 6, 407–423. doi: 10.1016/0272-7358(86)90029-2

Crowther, S., Hunter, B., McAra-Couper, J., Warren, L., Gilkison, A., Hunter, M., et al. (2016). Sustainability and resilience in midwifery: A discussion paper. Midwifery 40, 40–48. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2016.06.005

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dörner, D. (1980). On the difficulties people have in dealing with complexity. Simul. Games 11, 87–106.

Dörner, D. (1986). Diagnostik der operativen intelligenz. Diagnostica 32, 290–308.

D’Zurilla, T. J., Maydeu-Olivares, A., and Gallardo-Pujol, D. (2011). Predicting social problem solving using personality traits. Pers. Individ. Differ. 50, 142–147. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.015

D’Zurilla, T. J., Nezu, A. M., and Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2002). The Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R): Technical Manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Danner, D., Hagemann, D., Holt, D. V., Hager, M., Schankin, A., Wüstenberg, S., et al. (2011a). Measuring performance in dynamic decision making. J. Individ. Differ. 32, 225–233. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000055

Danner, D., Hagemann, D., Schankin, A., Hager, M., and Funke, J. (2011b). Beyond IQ: A latent state-trait analysis of general intelligence, dynamic decision making, and implicit learning. Intelligence 39, 323–334. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2011.06.004

de Kooter, S. (2015). Cities Skylines Guide: Beginner Tips and Tricks Guide. Available Online at: https://www.gameplayinside.com/strategy/cities-skylines/cities-skylines-guide-beginner-tips-and-tricks-guide/ .

Dörner, D., and Funke, J. (2017). Complex problem solving: What it is and what it is not. Front. Psychol. 8:1153. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01153

Dörner, D., Kreuzig, H. W., Reither, F., and Stäudel, T. (1983). Lohhausen: Vom Umgang mit Unbestimmtheit und Komplexität. Soziologische Rev. 8:93.

Eseryel, D., Law, V., Ifenthaler, D., Ge, X., and Miller, R. (2014). An investigation of the interrelationships between motivation, engagement, and complex problem solving in game-based learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 17, 42–53.

First, M., Williams, J., Smith, B., and Spitzer, R. (2019). SCID-5-PD. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Fletcher, D., and Sarkar, M. (2013). A review of psychological resilience. Eur. Psychol. 18, 12–23. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000124

Funke, J. (2001). Dynamic systems as tools for analysing human judgement. Think. Reason. 7, 69–89. doi: 10.1080/13546780042000046

Funke, J. (2003). Problemlösendes Denken. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Funke, J. (2012). “Complex Problem Solving,” in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning , ed. N. M. Seel (Boston, MA: Springer US), 682–685. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_685

Garcia-Dia, M. J., DiNapoli, J. M., Garcia-Ona, L., Jakubowski, R., and O’Flaherty, D. (2013). Concept analysis: Resilience. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 27, 264–270. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2013.07.003

Güss, C. D., Burger, M. L., and Dörner, D. (2017). The role of motivation in complex problem solving. Front. Psychol. 8:851. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00851

Hossiep, R., and Paschen, M. (2019). Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung . Göttingern: Hogrefe.

Hussy, W. (1998). Denken und Problemlösen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Kipman, U. (2020). Komplexes problemlösen . Wiesbaden: Springer.

Kuhl, J., and Kazen, M. (2009). Persönlichkeits-Stil-und Störungs-Inventar . Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Lee, H. H., and Cranford, J. A. (2008). Does resilience moderate the associations between parental problem drinking and adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors?: A study of Korean adolescents. Drug Alcohol Depend. 96, 213–221. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.03.007

Li, M. H., and Yang, Y. (2009). Determinants of problem solving, social support-seeking, and avoidance: A path analytic model. Int. J. Stress Manag. 16, 155–176. doi: 10.1037/a0016844

Li, M. H., Eschenauer, R., and Yang, Y. (2013). Influence of efficacy and resilience on problem solving in the United States, Taiwan, and China. Multicult. Couns. Dev. 41, 144–157. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1912.2013.00033.x

Lyubomirsky, S., Tucker, K. L., and Caldwell, N. D. (1999). Why ruminators are poor problem solvers: Clues from the phenomenology of dysphoric rumination. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77, 1041–1060. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1041

Marx, E. M., Williams, J. M., and Claridge, G. C. (1992). Depression and social problem solving. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 101, 78–86. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.101.1.78

McMurran, M., Duggan, C., Christopher, G., and Huband, N. (2007). The relationships between personality disorders and social problem solving in adults. Pers. Individ. Differ. 42, 145–155. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.07.002

McMurran, M., Egan, V., Blair, M., and Richardson, C. (2001). The relationship between social problem-solving and personality in mentally disordered offenders. Pers. Individ. Differ. 30, 517–524. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00050-7

Paradox Interactive (2015a). Cities: Skylines. Stockholm, SE: Paradox Interactive.

Paradox Interactive (2015b). Cities: Skylines: User Manual. Stockholm, SE: Paradox Interactive.

Pinar, S. E., Yildirim, G., and Sayin, N. (2018). Investigating the psychological resilience, self-confidence and problemsolving skills of midwife candidates. Nurse Educ. Today 64, 144–149. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.02.014

Rudolph, J. W., and Repenning, N. P. (2002). Disaster dynamics: Understanding the role of quantity in organizational collapse. Adm. Sci. Q. 47, 1–30. doi: 10.2307/3094889

Rudolph, J. W., Morrison, J. B., and Carroll, J. S. (2009). The dynamics of action-oriented problem solving: Linking interpretation and choice. Acad. Manag. Rev. 34, 733–756. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2009.44886170

Schiepek, G. (2009). Complexity and nonlinear dynamics in psychotherapy. Eur. Rev. 17, 331–356. doi: 10.1017/S1062798709000763

Schiepek, G., Stöger-Schmidinger, B., Aichhorn, W., Schöller, H., and Aas, B. (2016a). Systemic case formulation, individualized process monitoring, and state dynamics in a case of dissociative identity disorder. Front. Psychol. Clin. Settings 7:1545. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01545

Wagnild, G. M., and Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience scale. J. Nurs. Meas. 1, 165–178.

Williamson, G. R., Health, V., and Proctor-Childs, T. (2013). Vocation, friendship and resilience: A study exploring nursing student and staff views on retention and attrition. Open J. Nurs. 7, 149–156. doi: 10.2174/1874434601307010149

Wittmann, W. W., and Hattrup, K. (2004). The relationship between performance in dynamic systems and intelligence. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 21, 393–409. doi: 10.1002/sres.653

Keywords : complex problem solving (CPS), personality disorders, behavioral characteristics, personality traits, problem solving

Citation: Kipman U, Bartholdy S, Weiss M, Aichhorn W and Schiepek G (2022) Personality traits and complex problem solving: Personality disorders and their effects on complex problem-solving ability. Front. Psychol. 13:788402. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.788402

Received: 21 October 2021; Accepted: 08 July 2022; Published: 03 August 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Kipman, Bartholdy, Weiss, Aichhorn and Schiepek. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Ulrike Kipman, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is Problem-Solving Therapy?

Arlin Cuncic, MA, is the author of The Anxiety Workbook and founder of the website About Social Anxiety. She has a Master's degree in clinical psychology.

Daniel B. Block, MD, is an award-winning, board-certified psychiatrist who operates a private practice in Pennsylvania.

Verywell / Madelyn Goodnight

Problem-Solving Therapy Techniques

How effective is problem-solving therapy, things to consider, how to get started.

Problem-solving therapy is a brief intervention that provides people with the tools they need to identify and solve problems that arise from big and small life stressors. It aims to improve your overall quality of life and reduce the negative impact of psychological and physical illness.

Problem-solving therapy can be used to treat depression , among other conditions. It can be administered by a doctor or mental health professional and may be combined with other treatment approaches.

At a Glance

Problem-solving therapy is a short-term treatment used to help people who are experiencing depression, stress, PTSD, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and other mental health problems develop the tools they need to deal with challenges. This approach teaches people to identify problems, generate solutions, and implement those solutions. Let's take a closer look at how problem-solving therapy can help people be more resilient and adaptive in the face of stress.

Problem-solving therapy is based on a model that takes into account the importance of real-life problem-solving. In other words, the key to managing the impact of stressful life events is to know how to address issues as they arise. Problem-solving therapy is very practical in its approach and is only concerned with the present, rather than delving into your past.

This form of therapy can take place one-on-one or in a group format and may be offered in person or online via telehealth . Sessions can be anywhere from 30 minutes to two hours long. 

Key Components

There are two major components that make up the problem-solving therapy framework:

• Applying a positive problem-solving orientation to your life
• Using problem-solving skills

A positive problem-solving orientation means viewing things in an optimistic light, embracing self-efficacy , and accepting the idea that problems are a normal part of life. Problem-solving skills are behaviors that you can rely on to help you navigate conflict, even during times of stress. This includes skills like:

• Knowing how to identify a problem
• Defining the problem in a helpful way
• Trying to understand the problem more deeply
• Setting goals related to the problem
• Generating alternative, creative solutions to the problem
• Choosing the best course of action
• Implementing the choice you have made
• Evaluating the outcome to determine next steps

Problem-solving therapy is all about training you to become adaptive in your life so that you will start to see problems as challenges to be solved instead of insurmountable obstacles. It also means that you will recognize the action that is required to engage in effective problem-solving techniques.

Planful Problem-Solving

One problem-solving technique, called planful problem-solving, involves following a series of steps to fix issues in a healthy, constructive way:

• Problem definition and formulation : This step involves identifying the real-life problem that needs to be solved and formulating it in a way that allows you to generate potential solutions.
• Generation of alternative solutions : This stage involves coming up with various potential solutions to the problem at hand. The goal in this step is to brainstorm options to creatively address the life stressor in ways that you may not have previously considered.
• Decision-making strategies : This stage involves discussing different strategies for making decisions as well as identifying obstacles that may get in the way of solving the problem at hand.
• Solution implementation and verification : This stage involves implementing a chosen solution and then verifying whether it was effective in addressing the problem.

Other Techniques

Other techniques your therapist may go over include:

• Problem-solving multitasking , which helps you learn to think clearly and solve problems effectively even during times of stress
• Stop, slow down, think, and act (SSTA) , which is meant to encourage you to become more emotionally mindful when faced with conflict
• Healthy thinking and imagery , which teaches you how to embrace more positive self-talk while problem-solving

What Problem-Solving Therapy Can Help With

Problem-solving therapy addresses life stress issues and focuses on helping you find solutions to concrete issues. This approach can be applied to problems associated with various psychological and physiological symptoms.

Mental Health Issues

Problem-solving therapy may help address mental health issues, like:

• Chronic stress due to accumulating minor issues
• Complications associated with traumatic brain injury (TBI)
• Emotional distress
• Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
• Problems associated with a chronic disease like cancer, heart disease, or diabetes
• Self-harm and feelings of hopelessness
• Substance use
• Suicidal ideation

Specific Life Challenges

This form of therapy is also helpful for dealing with specific life problems, such as:

• Death of a loved one
• Dissatisfaction at work
• Everyday life stressors
• Family problems
• Financial difficulties
• Relationship conflicts

Your doctor or mental healthcare professional will be able to advise whether problem-solving therapy could be helpful for your particular issue. In general, if you are struggling with specific, concrete problems that you are having trouble finding solutions for, problem-solving therapy could be helpful for you.

Benefits of Problem-Solving Therapy

The skills learned in problem-solving therapy can be helpful for managing all areas of your life. These can include:

• Being able to identify which stressors trigger your negative emotions (e.g., sadness, anger)
• Confidence that you can handle problems that you face
• Having a systematic approach on how to deal with life's problems
• Having a toolbox of strategies to solve the issues you face
• Increased confidence to find creative solutions
• Knowing how to identify which barriers will impede your progress
• Knowing how to manage emotions when they arise
• Reduced avoidance and increased action-taking
• The ability to accept life problems that can't be solved
• The ability to make effective decisions
• The development of patience (realizing that not all problems have a "quick fix")

Problem-solving therapy can help people feel more empowered to deal with the problems they face in their lives. Rather than feeling overwhelmed when stressors begin to take a toll, this therapy introduces new coping skills that can boost self-efficacy and resilience .

Other Types of Therapy

Other similar types of therapy include cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) . While these therapies work to change thinking and behaviors, they work a bit differently. Both CBT and SFBT are less structured than problem-solving therapy and may focus on broader issues. CBT focuses on identifying and changing maladaptive thoughts, and SFBT works to help people look for solutions and build self-efficacy based on strengths.

This form of therapy was initially developed to help people combat stress through effective problem-solving, and it was later adapted to address clinical depression specifically. Today, much of the research on problem-solving therapy deals with its effectiveness in treating depression.

Problem-solving therapy has been shown to help depression in: 

• Older adults
• People coping with serious illnesses like cancer

Problem-solving therapy also appears to be effective as a brief treatment for depression, offering benefits in as little as six to eight sessions with a therapist or another healthcare professional. This may make it a good option for someone unable to commit to a lengthier treatment for depression.

Problem-solving therapy is not a good fit for everyone. It may not be effective at addressing issues that don't have clear solutions, like seeking meaning or purpose in life. Problem-solving therapy is also intended to treat specific problems, not general habits or thought patterns .

In general, it's also important to remember that problem-solving therapy is not a primary treatment for mental disorders. If you are living with the symptoms of a serious mental illness such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia , you may need additional treatment with evidence-based approaches for your particular concern.

Problem-solving therapy is best aimed at someone who has a mental or physical issue that is being treated separately, but who also has life issues that go along with that problem that has yet to be addressed.

For example, it could help if you can't clean your house or pay your bills because of your depression, or if a cancer diagnosis is interfering with your quality of life.

Your doctor may be able to recommend therapists in your area who utilize this approach, or they may offer it themselves as part of their practice. You can also search for a problem-solving therapist with help from the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Society of Clinical Psychology .

If receiving problem-solving therapy from a doctor or mental healthcare professional is not an option for you, you could also consider implementing it as a self-help strategy using a workbook designed to help you learn problem-solving skills on your own.

During your first session, your therapist may spend some time explaining their process and approach. They may ask you to identify the problem you’re currently facing, and they’ll likely discuss your goals for therapy .

Keep In Mind

Problem-solving therapy may be a short-term intervention that's focused on solving a specific issue in your life. If you need further help with something more pervasive, it can also become a longer-term treatment option.

Get Help Now

We've tried, tested, and written unbiased reviews of the best online therapy programs including Talkspace, BetterHelp, and ReGain. Find out which option is the best for you.

Shang P, Cao X, You S, Feng X, Li N, Jia Y. Problem-solving therapy for major depressive disorders in older adults: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials .  Aging Clin Exp Res . 2021;33(6):1465-1475. doi:10.1007/s40520-020-01672-3

Cuijpers P, Wit L de, Kleiboer A, Karyotaki E, Ebert DD. Problem-solving therapy for adult depression: An updated meta-analysis . Eur Psychiatry . 2018;48(1):27-37. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.11.006

Nezu AM, Nezu CM, D'Zurilla TJ. Problem-Solving Therapy: A Treatment Manual . New York; 2013. doi:10.1891/9780826109415.0001

Owens D, Wright-Hughes A, Graham L, et al. Problem-solving therapy rather than treatment as usual for adults after self-harm: a pragmatic, feasibility, randomised controlled trial (the MIDSHIPS trial) .  Pilot Feasibility Stud . 2020;6:119. doi:10.1186/s40814-020-00668-0

Sorsdahl K, Stein DJ, Corrigall J, et al. The efficacy of a blended motivational interviewing and problem solving therapy intervention to reduce substance use among patients presenting for emergency services in South Africa: A randomized controlled trial . Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy . 2015;10(1):46. doi:doi.org/10.1186/s13011-015-0042-1

Margolis SA, Osborne P, Gonzalez JS. Problem solving . In: Gellman MD, ed. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine . Springer International Publishing; 2020:1745-1747. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39903-0_208

Kirkham JG, Choi N, Seitz DP. Meta-analysis of problem solving therapy for the treatment of major depressive disorder in older adults . Int J Geriatr Psychiatry . 2016;31(5):526-535. doi:10.1002/gps.4358

Garand L, Rinaldo DE, Alberth MM, et al. Effects of problem solving therapy on mental health outcomes in family caregivers of persons with a new diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or early dementia: A randomized controlled trial . Am J Geriatr Psychiatry . 2014;22(8):771-781. doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2013.07.007

Noyes K, Zapf AL, Depner RM, et al. Problem-solving skills training in adult cancer survivors: Bright IDEAS-AC pilot study .  Cancer Treat Res Commun . 2022;31:100552. doi:10.1016/j.ctarc.2022.100552

Albert SM, King J, Anderson S, et al. Depression agency-based collaborative: effect of problem-solving therapy on risk of common mental disorders in older adults with home care needs . The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry . 2019;27(6):619-624. doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2019.01.002

By Arlin Cuncic, MA Arlin Cuncic, MA, is the author of The Anxiety Workbook and founder of the website About Social Anxiety. She has a Master's degree in clinical psychology.

Problem vs. Solution Focused Thinking

Every person approaches a problem in a different way. Some focus on the problem or the reason why a problem emerged (problem focused thinking). Others prefer to think about possible solutions that help them to solve a problem (solution focused thinking).  Problem Oriented Thinking:  Approaching a difficult situation problem-oriented might be helpful if we attempt to avoid similar problems or mistakes in the future, but when it comes to solving the problem we simply waste large amounts of our precious time! Problem-focused thinking does not help us at all to solve difficult situations, which is especially necessary in times where one must find quick solutions to an upcoming problem. Furthermore, the problem focused approach can have negative effects on one’s motivation, but more on this later.

The whole “problem vs. solution oriented thinking” – approach does not only apply when a person faces a problem or a difficult situation (as previously mentioned), but is also being applied in one’s everyday life, when we have to face a challenging task or when having to perform several duties. In fact: if we really focus our attention on this topic we can discover that the majority of our decisions and our attitudes towards tasks, problems and upcoming situations will either be problem or solution oriented. In order to demonstrate you the problem and solution focused approach I have chosen to give you the example of a college student:

Let’s say there is a college student that really does not like math at all (it doesn’t matter what subject he does not like, but I do not like math as well) . Just like every other college student, he will have to do some homework for math and if he wants to pass the exams he will have to study a lot, whether he likes math or not. The student would be approaching the subject math problem-oriented if he would continuously imagine all the negative aspects of math that he does not like and might ask himself the question, “Why do I have to study for math? For what kind of reason?” . The college student would be talking with his fellow students about the pointlessness of math, which will only strengthen his negative opinion about math. Rather than focusing his energy on studying for math he will get uptight and spends large amounts of his time in an ineffective way, that won’t help him to pass the exams.

When I was in school I heard similar questions whole the time, especially when it came to subjects that the majority of my classmates did not like. To be honest, when I was younger I was asking myself these questions as well, especially in subjects that I knew were pointless for the profession I wanted to become. When I grew older I started to scrutinize this behavior and noticed how senseless it was to focus all my attention on problem focused thinking, especially as this only decreased my motivation and strengthened my resentment towards these subjects.

Discovering that one is majorly approaching tasks and challenges problem focused can be really difficult, but once we are aware of this we can start to change our focus from the problem towards the solution and make use of the solution-focused thinking.

Let us come back to the example of the college student that was thinking problem oriented. In order to think solution oriented, he would need to completely accept the fact that math is a part of his schedule and will, therefore, be tested in his exams, whether he likes math or not. By accepting this fact he will easily destroy the root cause for questions that focus on the reason for something (“Why?”) and that only waste his time.

We start to think solution oriented once we are aware that we cannot change certain facts/problems and will only spend our time in an inefficient way when we seek for the possible reasons for these situations. By clarifying the reasons why the task we have to face (e.g. math) might be important, for example, to get accepted to a good university or to increase our GPA, we can bring the solution focused thinking to a further level.

It is really astounding to see how many people are thinking problem oriented, especially as this behavior starts in school and can be found in the professional world as well, for example when an employee has to face a new task that he is not familiar with, or has little to no knowledge about. Those that think problem-oriented would be imagining all the negative consequences they might have to face or all the mistakes they might commit when trying to solve the task. The employee will talk about his difficult situation with different colleagues, his partner or friends, which will only increase his fear of the upcoming task.

When you focus only on the problem, you might miss a new path.

The employee that quite in the contrary knows of the benefits of solution focused thinking does not struggle with the new task for a second, as he is too busy to take necessary preparations to solve it. He will completely accept the new task as a challenge, or even consider the task as a chance to prove his boss that he is capable of solving even the more advanced tasks.

How to avoid problem focused thinking?

#1 self-knowledge:.

In order to avoid problem focused thinking and to replace it with solution-oriented thinking we firstly need to discover that we approach different tasks, problems, challenges, etc. in a problem-oriented way. This is the utmost important step to do. You can identify whether you approach tasks problem-oriented by paying attention towards the questions that arise when you have to face a task that you do not like, which might be indicators for problem focused thinking:

• Why do I have to perform this task?
• What is the reason that I have to study this subject?
• Why do I even spend time with this?

#2 Fight problem-oriented questions:

The very first step to approach problems with solution focused thinking is to avoid questions that mainly focus on the reason or the problem in general. You need to clarify yourself that the question for the “WHY” will only waste important time that you could have invested to solve a given problem.

#3 Clarity:

When you come to the conclusion that a task needs to be done you will see the pointlessness of further evaluating the usefulness or non-usefulness of a task. So when you have to face a task that you dislike you could ask yourself the question, “Has this task to be fulfilled?” and when you conclude that the answer is “Yes”, then you know that every further attempt to evaluate the reasons and the “Why’s” is a waste of time.

#4 Why is it important to solve this task?

Questioning and clarifying the importance of a task will finally erase the root cause of every problem-oriented question. By clarifying the reasons why a task needs to be performed we can effectively change our focus from the problem to possible solutions.

#5 Think about the solution:

The final step to profit from solution focused thinking the most is to ask yourself different questions on how you can solve a given task or problem:

• How can I solve this task?
• How can I address this problem?
• What would be the first step to solving this problem?
• What kind of preparations will be necessary for this task?

Why does problem focused thinking decrease motivation?

Just imagine yourself having to study for an upcoming test (whether it is for school or a professional development is unimportant). While you are sitting in front of your table you start thinking about the exam and how much you dislike the whole subject. Questions that address the reason why you have to study for this subject start to arise and will ensure that you lose even the slightest interest in your task. Without being interested and a dozen of different questions that start to arise we finally lack the motivation to study for the exam !

Problem vs. Solution oriented thinking was presented by our Personality Growth Website. What is your preferred way of thinking? We’re excited to hear about your experiences in the comments section below.

About Author

Steve is the founder of Planet of Success , the #1 choice when it comes to motivation, self-growth and empowerment. This world does not need followers. What it needs is people who stand in their own sovereignty. Join us in the quest to live life to the fullest!

Related Posts

The entj personality type analyzed, the istp personality type analyzed, the esfj personality type explained, 24 comments.

Just saying Problem focused approach wastes time is ridiculous. It depends on what situation you’re in. If you’re preparing for an exam like olympiads, Problem focused approach is Best whereas while in actual exam, a solution focused approach might be better. You’re not going to learn and understand anything unless you ask yourself the questions like Why, What and How. But I can’t expect the same fro someone who has disliked Maths.

Did you read the first part of this? They specifically mentioned that starting with a problem oriented perspective is fine, but to eventually “fight it” by answering those questions so that you can get to a solution oriented perspective. Essentially, the big picture here is to not get stuck in problem orientation — it’s quite simple.

The issue of stress is ignored here. Tolerance for ambiguity is reduced by stress. When stressed, any additional requirement is a “problem.” This starts a downward spiral. A willingness to reduce our personal stress (with good diet, aerobic exercise, adequate sleep, etc.) can allow us to acknowledge our willingness (and culpability) in accepting new challenges, which can then take us away from an “Everything is a problem” attitudes.

Hello Jane, this is an incredibly important remark you make here. Thank you for sharing it. I hadn’t considered it from this perspective, but you are absolutely right.

I hate to be offensive, but I also don’t like to say, “No offense”, so I will tell you something that will probably offend you, Steve. But if you hadn’t considered it from that perspective, then you probably aren’t fully qualified to be writing articles like this. You obviously haven’t studied the full depths and ramifications of the issue.

Furthermore, you are telling people to ignore emotions which are a signal to them that something is wrong. Certainly, people can become TOO overtaken by those emotions, but just ignoring those emotions pushes them aside and suppresses them. Ultimately, it is those reactions and emotions that are the barometer of everything that we do. I’m not saying that there isn’t merit to what you are saying, but putting it in such black and white terms ignores so many factors that people deal with.

Finally, there is a strong value to considering problems, and even dwelling on them. It is a natural psychological process. The “why” is often crucial. It also leads to critical thinking and evaluating. Maybe there is a better process that could be undertaken to do the set of tasks much more efficiently, which leads to innovating thinking. It allows for questioning of morality, efficiency, ramifications and consequences. Even visceral reactions to problems can be an indicator of a deeper problem that needs to be addressed. Shutting any these down can cause numerous problems down the road.

I’m not saying that the article doesn’t provide merit, but the fact that you haven’t brought up many of the innumerable other factors to be considered really makes me think that you shouldn’t be writing articles like this, because you simply have only cursory knowledge of the psychology involved.

I’m sorry if that stings, but I think you may be doing more harm than good by saying these things.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. No offense taken.

Wonderful Steve. I so agree that a person’s success depends on their ability to be solution oriented. I am a follower of Dr. Wayne Dyer, and your philosophy sounds fully compatible.

Thanks Sherwin. I am glad someone agrees.

The only reason one (stakeholder) would recognize a situation and label it as a problem is when it demands a solution. Thus problem and solution co-exist – the latter waiting to be discovered. Difficult for me to understand what a problem oriented approach would be.

“Why should I do this task?” simply means that one is not a stakeholder. If so, the problem simply does not exist!

My intention behind writing this article was to point out that some people only focus on the problem, whereas other people take notice of the problem but more eager to find a solution. The first approach involves complaining, but does not lead anywhere. The second approach is not so prone to complaining, but actively seeks for solutions to the problem.

The key term here is orientation not exclusivity. I consider myself to be a solution-oriented person and also know that it is essential that I define what a problem actually entails before I set about trying to resolve it. Sometimes this process is met with a significant amount of resistance due to the emotional discomfort that can arise during my search to define something. Logic dictates that it is seldom a black and white scenario. Acceptance of a problem can be a bigger challenge than we initially realise. Also over-simplifying issues around problem-solving will not do justice to the sometimes complex nature of any problem and/or solution. I do believe the concept of being solution-oriented is a health directed approach and leaves less room for unhealthy manipulation. That is where I see the value in this kind of orientation. Mental and physical health always come into any equation (yes, I said that) involving problems and solutions that need attention to improve health and well being. Thanks for your thoughts and intentions Steve. I believe you are on the right track.

Thank you Louise for sharing your brilliantly articulated thoughts on this subject. I absolutely agree with you.

I’d like to add a comment as an observer of my own behavior. I notice that I complain more when I’m more physically and mentally fatigued which drains me even more. And like an earlier commenter mentioned stress plays a factor in how we choose to spend our time and what we focus on in our thoughts. All the feel good endorphins and the dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin produced in our brains has a huge effect on how we think. I agree that diet and exercise plays a huge part in how we view the world and the obstacles that are placed in front of us everyday.The more of those chemicals produced the more positive thoughts and the less fatigued you feel. I love this article BTW.

What a clearly written and extremely helpful/useful article! I thank you for it.

You’re welcome. Thanks for your feedback.

The mentality in this article is common in business management etc, but unfortunately, it is not so simple as it would have you believe. The described solution-driven thinking implies falling in line with the current power structure and establishment, and naturally is promoted wide and far.

I consider problem-oriented thinking closely linked with critical thinking, and that we have too little of today. If you don’t ask questions like “what?” and “why?”, and instead simply accept the circumstances you’re in, then you also strip away important aspects of participating in society. Circumstances can and do change, and just accepting them means someone else will change it in your stead.

Sure, sometimes you need to stay focused on solving the task at hand. Knowing the difference I’d argue is part of what critical thinking is about, which the world is in dire need of.

Excellent argumentation. Thanks for your contribution.

problems were not here without any solution. There should always be one answer for it, no matter how big or small the problem is. always think on the positive side and you’ll see the solution is just always in front of you or just within your grasp.

Nice words for to understand about the problems. How to be aware in problems. Thank you

While trying to focus on solutions to a couple of problems currently plaguing my empire, I have no choice but to consider the problems, and considering the problems makes me more and more angry and totally distracts me from finding the solution :-/

Lovely topic I was recently faced with a challenge of getting my little daughter back on track after she suddenly took a 360 degree turn in personality and this was the exact debate the edu psych at school and I were having . Do I molicottle the situation and just over compliment her to improve self esteem or do i use the problem solution way of thinking which I agre with and he disagrees with ,wow tough one but I feel equip a young impressionable mind with so many negative influences in her way ,the best approach as a mom in help in my child succeed in her future is the solution based technique and in order for us to find solutions we need to identify the problem else the word solution lol would never have been invented as an antonym ….hahhah

Very good article. When you linger too long on problem, it makes you stressful whereas solution focused approach brings up your dormant resources. Although the situation is same the way your brain chemistry works is very different with these two different approach.

When presented with a problem my instinct is to find a way to fix it, I’m led to believe this is more a male trait than a female trait.

Males are tunnel vision, females periphery vision.

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Share Podcast

A Better Framework for Solving Tough Problems

Start with trust and end with speed.

• Apple Podcasts

When it comes to solving complicated problems, the default for many organizational leaders is to take their time to work through the issues at hand. Unfortunately, that often leads to patchwork solutions or problems not truly getting resolved.

But Anne Morriss offers a different framework. In this episode, she outlines a five-step process for solving any problem and explains why starting with trust and ending with speed is so important for effective change leadership. As she says, “Let’s get into dialogue with the people who are also impacted by the problem before we start running down the path of solving it.”

Morriss is an entrepreneur and leadership coach. She’s also the coauthor of the book, Move Fast and Fix Things: The Trusted Leader’s Guide to Solving Hard Problems .

Key episode topics include: strategy, decision making and problem solving, strategy execution, managing people, collaboration and teams, trustworthiness, organizational culture, change leadership, problem solving, leadership.

HBR On Strategy curates the best case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, to help you unlock new ways of doing business. New episodes every week.

• Listen to the full HBR IdeaCast episode: How to Solve Tough Problems Better and Faster (2023)
• Find more episodes of HBR IdeaCast
• Discover 100 years of Harvard Business Review articles, case studies, podcasts, and more at HBR.org .

HANNAH BATES: Welcome to HBR On Strategy , case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, hand-selected to help you unlock new ways of doing business.

When it comes to solving complicated problems, many leaders only focus on the most apparent issues. Unfortunately that often leads to patchwork or partial solutions. But Anne Morriss offers a different framework that aims to truly tackle big problems by first leaning into trust and then focusing on speed.

Morriss is an entrepreneur and leadership coach. She’s also the co-author of the book, Move Fast and Fix Things: The Trusted Leader’s Guide to Solving Hard Problems . In this episode, she outlines a five-step process for solving any problem. Some, she says, can be solved in a week, while others take much longer. She also explains why starting with trust and ending with speed is so important for effective change leadership.

This episode originally aired on HBR IdeaCast in October 2023. Here it is.

CURT NICKISCH: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I’m Curt Nickisch.

Problems can be intimidating. Sure, some problems are fun to dig into. You roll up your sleeves, you just take care of them; but others, well, they’re complicated. Sometimes it’s hard to wrap your brain around a problem, much less fix it.

And that’s especially true for leaders in organizations where problems are often layered and complex. They sometimes demand technical, financial, or interpersonal knowledge to fix. And whether it’s avoidance on the leaders’ part or just the perception that a problem is systemic or even intractable, problems find a way to endure, to keep going, to keep being a problem that everyone tries to work around or just puts up with.

But today’s guest says that just compounds it and makes the problem harder to fix. Instead, she says, speed and momentum are key to overcoming a problem.

Anne Morriss is an entrepreneur, leadership coach and founder of the Leadership Consortium and with Harvard Business School Professor Francis Frei, she wrote the new book, Move Fast and Fix Things: The Trusted Leaders Guide to Solving Hard Problems . Anne, welcome back to the show.

ANNE MORRISS: Curt, thank you so much for having me.

CURT NICKISCH: So, to generate momentum at an organization, you say that you really need speed and trust. We’ll get into those essential ingredients some more, but why are those two essential?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. Well, the essential pattern that we observed was that the most effective change leaders out there were building trust and speed, and it didn’t seem to be a well-known observation. We all know the phrase, “Move fast and break things,” but the people who were really getting it right were moving fast and fixing things, and that was really our jumping off point. So when we dug into the pattern, what we observed was they were building trust first and then speed. This foundation of trust was what allowed them to fix more things and break fewer.

CURT NICKISCH: Trust sounds like a slow thing, right? If you talk about building trust, that is something that takes interactions, it takes communication, it takes experiences. Does that run counter to the speed idea?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. Well, this issue of trust is something we’ve been looking at for over a decade. One of the headlines in our research is it’s actually something we’re building and rebuilding and breaking all the time. And so instead of being this precious, almost farbege egg, it’s this thing that is constantly in motion and this thing that we can really impact when we’re deliberate about our choices and have some self-awareness around where it’s breaking down and how it’s breaking down.

CURT NICKISCH: You said break trust in there, which is intriguing, right? That you may have to break trust to build trust. Can you explain that a little?

ANNE MORRISS:  Yeah, well, I’ll clarify. It’s not that you have to break it in order to build it. It’s just that we all do it some of the time. Most of us are trusted most of the time. Most of your listeners I imagine are trusted most of the time, but all of us have a pattern where we break trust or where we don’t build as much as could be possible.

CURT NICKISCH: I want to talk about speed, this other essential ingredient that’s so intriguing, right? Because you think about solving hard problems as something that just takes a lot of time and thinking and coordination and planning and designing. Explain what you mean by it? And also, just  how we maybe approach problems wrong by taking them on too slowly?

ANNE MORRISS: Well, Curt, no one has ever said to us, “I wish I had taken longer and done less.” We hear the opposite all the time, by the way. So what we really set out to do was to create a playbook that anyone can use to take less time to do more of the things that are going to make your teams and organizations stronger.

And the way we set up the book is okay, it’s really a five step process. Speed is the last step. It’s the payoff for the hard work you’re going to do to figure out your problem, build or rebuild trust, expand the team in thoughtful and strategic ways, and then tell a real and compelling story about the change you’re leading.

Only then do you get to go fast, but that’s an essential part of the process, and we find that either people under emphasize it or speed has gotten a bad name in this world of moving fast and breaking things. And part of our mission for sure was to rehabilitate speed’s reputation because it is an essential part of the change leader’s equation. It can be the difference between good intentions and getting anything done at all.

CURT NICKISCH: You know, the fact that nobody ever tells you, “I wish we had done less and taken more time.” I think we all feel that, right? Sometimes we do something and then realize, “Oh, that wasn’t that hard and why did it take me so long to do it? And I wish I’d done this a long time ago.” Is it ever possible to solve a problem too quickly?

ANNE MORRISS: Absolutely. And we see that all the time too. What we push people to do in those scenarios is really take a look at the underlying issue because in most cases, the solution is not to take your foot off the accelerator per se and slow down. The solution is to get into the underlying problem. So if it’s burnout or a strategic disconnect between what you’re building and the marketplace you’re serving, what we find is the anxiety that people attach to speed or the frustration people attach to speed is often misplaced.

CURT NICKISCH: What is a good timeline to think about solving a problem then? Because if we by default take too long or else jump ahead and we don’t fix it right, what’s a good target time to have in your mind for how long solving a problem should take?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. Well, we’re playful in the book and talking about the idea that many problems can be solved in a week. We set the book up five chapters. They’re titled Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and we’re definitely having fun with that. And yet, if you count the hours in a week, there are a lot of them. Many of our problems, if you were to spend a focused 40 hours of effort on a problem, you’re going to get pretty far.

But our main message is, listen, of course it’s going to depend on the nature of the problem, and you’re going to take weeks and maybe even some cases months to get to the other side. What we don’t want you to do is take years, which tends to be our default timeline for solving hard problems.

CURT NICKISCH: So you say to start with identifying the problem that’s holding you back, seems kind of obvious. But where do companies go right and wrong with this first step of just identifying the problem that’s holding you back?

ANNE MORRISS: And our goal is that all of these are going to feel obvious in retrospect. The problem is we skip over a lot of these steps and this is why we wanted to underline them. So this one is really rooted in our observation and I think the pattern of our species that we tend to be overconfident in the quality of our thoughts, particularly when it comes to diagnosing problems.

And so we want to invite you to start in a very humble and curious place, which tends not to be our default mode when we’re showing up for work. We convince ourselves that we’re being paid for our judgment. That’s exactly what gets reinforced everywhere. And so we tend to counterintuitively, given what we just talked about, we tend to move too quickly through the diagnostic phase.

CURT NICKISCH: “I know what to do, that’s why you hired me.”

ANNE MORRISS: Exactly. “I know what to do. That’s why you hired me. I’ve seen this before. I have a plan. Follow me.” We get rewarded for the expression of confidence and clarity. And so what we’re inviting people to do here is actually pause and really lean into what are the root causes of the problem you’re seeing? What are some alternative explanations? Let’s get into dialogue with the people who are also impacted by the problem before we start running down the path of solving it.

CURT NICKISCH: So what do you recommend for this step, for getting to the root of the problem? What are questions you should ask? What’s the right thought process? What do you do on Monday of the week?

ANNE MORRISS: In our experience of doing this work, people tend to undervalue the power of conversation, particularly with other people in the organization. So we will often advocate putting together a team of problem solvers, make it a temporary team, really pull in people who have a particular perspective on the problem and create the space, make it as psychologically safe as you can for people to really, as Chris Argyris so beautifully articulated, discuss the undiscussable.

And so the conditions for that are going to look different in every organization depending on the problem, but if you can get a space where smart people who have direct experience of a problem are in a room and talking honestly with each other, you can make an extraordinary amount of progress, certainly in a day.

CURT NICKISCH: Yeah, that gets back to the trust piece.

ANNE MORRISS: Definitely.

CURT NICKISCH: How do you like to start that meeting, or how do you like to talk about it? I’m just curious what somebody on that team might hear in that meeting, just to get the sense that it’s psychologically safe, you can discuss the undiscussable and you’re also focusing on the identification part. What’s key to communicate there?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. Well, we sometimes encourage people to do a little bit of data gathering before those conversations. So the power of a quick anonymous survey around whatever problem you’re solving, but also be really thoughtful about the questions you’re going to ask in the moment. So a little bit of preparation can go a long way and a little bit of thoughtfulness about the power dynamic. So who’s going to walk in there with license to speak and who’s going to hold back? So being thoughtful about the agenda, about the questions you’re asking about the room, about the facilitation, and then courage is a very infectious emotion.

So if you can early on create the conditions for people to show up bravely in that conversation, then the chance that you’re going to get good information and that you’re going to walk out of that room with new insight in the problem that you didn’t have when you walked in is extraordinarily high.

CURT NICKISCH: Now, in those discussions, you may have people who have different perspectives on what the problem really is. They also bear different costs of addressing the problem or solving it. You talked about the power dynamic, but there’s also an unfairness dynamic of who’s going to actually have to do the work to take care of it, and I wonder how you create a culture in that meeting where it’s the most productive?

ANNE MORRISS: For sure, the burden of work is not going to be equitably distributed around the room. But I would say, Curt, the dynamic that we see most often is that people are deeply relieved that hard problems are being addressed. So it really can create, and more often than not in our experience, it does create this beautiful flywheel of action, creativity, optimism. Often when problems haven’t been addressed, there is a fair amount of anxiety in the organization, frustration, stagnation. And so credible movement towards action and progress is often the best antidote. So even if the plan isn’t super clear yet, if it’s credible, given who’s in the room and their decision rights and mandate, if there’s real momentum coming out of that to make progress, then that tends to be deeply energizing to people.

CURT NICKISCH: I wonder if there’s an organization that you’ve worked with that you could talk about how this rolled out and how this took shape?

ANNE MORRISS: When we started working with Uber, that was wrestling with some very public issues of culture and trust with a range of stakeholders internally, the organization, also external, that work really started with a campaign of listening and really trying to understand where trust was breaking down from the perspective of these stakeholders?

So whether it was female employees or regulators or riders who had safety concerns getting into the car with a stranger. This work, it starts with an honest internal dialogue, but often the problem has threads that go external. And so bringing that same commitment to curiosity and humility and dialogue to anyone who’s impacted by the problem is the fastest way to surface what’s really going on.

CURT NICKISCH: There’s a step in this process that you lay out and that’s communicating powerfully as a leader. So we’ve heard about listening and trust building, but now you’re talking about powerful communication. How do you do this and why is it maybe this step in the process rather than the first thing you do or the last thing you do?

ANNE MORRISS: So in our process, again, it’s the days of the week. On Monday you figured out the problem. Tuesday you really got into the sandbox in figuring out what a good enough plan is for building trust. Wednesday, step three, you made it better. You created an even better plan, bringing in new perspectives. Thursday, this fourth step is the day we’re saying you got to go get buy-in. You got to bring other people along. And again, this is a step where we see people often underinvest in the power and payoff of really executing it well.

CURT NICKISCH: How does that go wrong?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah, people don’t know the why. Human behavior and the change in human behavior really depends on a strong why. It’s not just a selfish, “What’s in it for me?” Although that’s helpful, but where are we going? I may be invested in a status quo and I need to understand, okay, if you’re going to ask me to change, if you’re going to invite me into this uncomfortable place of doing things differently, why am I here? Help me understand it and articulate the way forward and language that not only I can understand, but also that’s going to be motivating to me.

CURT NICKISCH: And who on my team was part of this process and all that kind of stuff?

ANNE MORRISS: Oh, yeah. I may have some really important questions that may be in the way of my buy-in and commitment to this plan. So certainly creating a space where those questions can be addressed is essential. But what we found is that there is an architecture of a great change story, and it starts with honoring the past, honoring the starting place. Sometimes we’re so excited about the change and animated about the change that what has happened before or what is even happening in the present tense is low on our list of priorities.

Or we want to label it bad, because that’s the way we’ve thought about the change, but really pausing and honoring what came before you and all the reasonable decisions that led up to it, I think can be really helpful to getting people emotionally where you want them to be willing to be guided by you. Going back to Uber, when Dara Khosrowshahi came in.

CURT NICKISCH: This is the new CEO.

ANNE MORRISS: The new CEO.

CURT NICKISCH: Replaced Travis Kalanick, the founder and first CEO, yeah.

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah, and had his first all-hands meeting. One of his key messages, and this is a quote, was that he was going to retain the edge that had made Uber, “A force of nature.” And in that meeting, the crowd went wild because this is also a company that had been beaten up publicly for months and months and months, and it was a really powerful choice. And his predecessor, Travis was in the room, and he also honored Travis’ incredible work and investment in bringing the company to the place where it was.

And I would use words like grace to also describe those choices, but there’s also an incredible strategic value to naming the starting place for everybody in the room because in most cases, most people in that room played a role in getting to that starting place, and you’re acknowledging that.

CURT NICKISCH: You can call it grace. Somebody else might call it diplomatic or strategic. But yeah, I guess like it or not, it’s helpful to call out and honor the complexity of the way things have been done and also the change that’s happening.

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah, and the value. Sometimes honoring the past is also owning what didn’t work or what wasn’t working for stakeholders or segments of the employee team, and we see that around culture change. Sometimes you’ve got to acknowledge that it was not an equitable environment, but whatever the worker, everyone in that room is bringing that pass with them. So again, making it discussable and using it as the jumping off place is where we advise people to start.

Then you’ve earned the right to talk about the change mandate, which we suggest using clear and compelling language about the why. “This is what happened, this is where we are, this is the good and the bad of it, and here’s the case for change.”

And then the last part, which is to describe a rigorous and optimistic way forward. It’s a simple past, present, future arc, which will be familiar to human beings. We love stories as human beings. It’s among the most powerful currency we have to make sense of the world.

CURT NICKISCH: Yeah. Chronological is a pretty powerful order.

ANNE MORRISS: Right. But again, the change leaders we see really get it right, are investing an incredible amount of time into the storytelling part of their job. Ursula Burns, the Head of Xerox is famous for the months and years she spent on the road just telling the story of Xerox’s change, its pivot into services to everyone who would listen, and that was a huge part of her success.

CURT NICKISCH: So Friday or your fifth step, you end with empowering teams and removing roadblocks. That seems obvious, but it’s critical. Can you dig into that a little bit?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. Friday is the fun day. Friday’s the release of energy into the system. Again, you’ve now earned the right to go fast. You have a plan, you’re pretty confident it’s going to work. You’ve told the story of change the organization, and now you get to sprint. So this is about really executing with urgency, and it’s about a lot of the tactics of speed is where we focus in the book. So the tactics of empowerment, making tough strategic trade-offs so that your priorities are clear and clearly communicated, creating mechanisms to fast-track progress. At Etsy, CEO Josh Silverman, he labeled these projects ambulances. It’s an unfortunate metaphor, but it’s super memorable. These are the products that get to speed out in front of the other ones because the stakes are high and the clock is sticking.

CURT NICKISCH: You pull over and let it go by.

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah, exactly. And so we have to agree as an organization on how to do something like that. And so we see lots of great examples both in young organizations and big complex biotech companies with lots of regulatory guardrails have still found ways to do this gracefully.

And I think we end with this idea of conflict debt, which is a term we really love. Leanne Davey, who’s a team scholar and researcher, and anyone in a tech company will recognize the idea of tech debt, which is this weight the organization drags around until they resolve it. Conflict debt is a beautiful metaphor because it is this weight that we drag around and slows us down until we decide to clean it up and fix it. The organizations that are really getting speed right have figured out either formally or informally, how to create an environment where conflict and disagreements can be gracefully resolved.

CURT NICKISCH: Well, let’s talk about this speed more, right? Because I think this is one of those places that maybe people go wrong or take too long, and then you lose the awareness of the problem, you lose that urgency. And then that also just makes it less effective, right? It’s not just about getting the problem solved as quickly as possible. It’s also just speed in some ways helps solve the problem.

ANNE MORRISS: Oh, yeah. It really is the difference between imagining the change you want to lead and really being able to bring it to life. Speed is the thing that unlocks your ability to lead change. It needs a foundation, and that’s what Monday through Thursday is all about, steps one through four, but the finish line is executing with urgency, and it’s that urgency that releases the system’s energy, that communicates your priorities, that creates the conditions for your team to make progress.

CURT NICKISCH: Moving fast is something that entrepreneurs and tech companies certainly understand, but there’s also this awareness that with big companies, the bigger the organization, the harder it is to turn the aircraft carrier around, right? Is speed relative when you get at those levels, or do you think this is something that any company should be able to apply equally?

ANNE MORRISS: We think this applies to any company. The culture really lives at the level of team. So we believe you can make a tremendous amount of progress even within your circle of control as a team leader. I want to bring some humility to this and careful of words like universal, but we do think there’s some universal truths here around the value of speed, and then some of the byproducts like keeping fantastic people. Your best people want to solve problems, they want to execute, they want to make progress and speed, and the ability to do that is going to be a variable in their own equation of whether they stay or they go somewhere else where they can have an impact.

CURT NICKISCH: Right. They want to accomplish something before they go or before they retire or finish something out. And if you’re able to just bring more things on the horizon and have it not feel like it’s going to be another two years to do something meaningful.

ANNE MORRISS: People – I mean, they want to make stuff happen and they want to be around the energy and the vitality of making things happen, which again, is also a super infectious phenomenon. One of the most important jobs of a leader, we believe, is to set the metabolic pace of their teams and organizations. And so what we really dig into on Friday is, well, what does that look like to speed something up? What are the tactics of that?

CURT NICKISCH: I wonder if that universal truth, that a body in motion stays in motion applies to organizations, right? If an organization in motion stays in motion, there is something to that.

ANNE MORRISS: Absolutely.

CURT NICKISCH: Do you have a favorite client story to share, just where you saw speed just become a bit of a flywheel or just a positive reinforcement loop for more positive change at the organization?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. We work with a fair number of organizations that are on fire. We do a fair amount of firefighting, but we also less dramatically do a lot of fire prevention. So we’re brought into organizations that are working well and want to get better, looking out on the horizon. That work is super gratifying, and there is always a component of, well, how do we speed this up?

What I love about that work is there’s often already a high foundation of trust, and so it’s, well, how do we maintain that foundation but move this flywheel, as you said, even faster? And it’s really energizing because often there’s a lot of pent-up energy that… There’s a lot of loyalty to the organization, but often it’s also frustration and pent-up energy. And so when that gets released, when good people get the opportunity to sprint for the first time in a little while, it’s incredibly energizing, not just for us, but for the whole organization.

CURT NICKISCH: Anne, this is great. I think finding a way to solve problems better but also faster is going to be really helpful. So thanks for coming on the show to talk about it.

ANNE MORRISS:  Oh, Curt, it was such a pleasure. This is my favorite conversation. I’m delighted to have it anytime.

HANNAH BATES: That was entrepreneur, leadership coach, and author Anne Morriss – in conversation with Curt Nickisch on HBR IdeaCast.

We’ll be back next Wednesday with another hand-picked conversation about business strategy from Harvard Business Review. If you found this episode helpful, share it with your friends and colleagues, and follow our show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. While you’re there, be sure to leave us a review.

When you’re ready for more podcasts, articles, case studies, books, and videos with the world’s top business and management experts, you’ll find it all at HBR.org.

This episode was produced by Mary Dooe, Anne Saini, and me, Hannah Bates. Ian Fox is our editor. Special thanks to Rob Eckhardt, Maureen Hoch, Erica Truxler, Ramsey Khabbaz, Nicole Smith, Anne Bartholomew, and you – our listener. See you next week.

• Subscribe On:

Latest in this series

This article is about strategy.

• Decision making and problem solving
• Strategy execution
• Leadership and managing people
• Collaboration and teams
• Trustworthiness
• Organizational culture

Partner Center

Knuggets of Knowledge

Knowledge and skills for leadership in the modern tech industry, being problem-oriented vs people-oriented, what’s the difference.

Here’s an interesting leadership thought exercise. Let’s say your team is walking along lengthy paths, and there are a bunch of boulders in the way along the path. Which of these is your initial reaction?

a) Run ahead on the paths and remove all the boulders

b) Make sure each team member has a pickaxe and crowbar, to remove boulders

I’ve found that many top-down management initiatives from leaders fall into one of these two categories. You can be  problem-oriented , in which you are trying to solve problems and remove impediments for people. This usually means streamlining or removing processes or adding new processes. Alternatively, you can be  people-oriented , in which you are trying to hire and grow people who can solve problems on their own.

Both of these approaches have their pros and cons. Being problem-oriented has the benefit of velocity, in that you are enabling people to work faster and focus on their core goals, not on removing boulders. This can also be more scalable. After all, we build roads and highways and bridges for cars to move quickly from one place to another; we don’t expect each car to have its own ability to drive through forests and over rivers. But the challenge is that you will spend more and more of your time running around trying to remove boulders because the boulders will never stop appearing.

As for being people-oriented, it is a very well-known challenge and I have spoken at length in previous blog posts about hiring and training. For this approach to work, you have to truly hire the right people, furnish the right tools (giving them a broom won’t help with boulders), and provide the right training and opportunities for growth.

What’s interesting is these approaches tend to be at odds with one another in organizations. If you are problem-oriented, the expectation is that people are following the process (i.e. stay on the road, don’t drive through the grass), and this can result in people not being able to adjust or tailor approaches for edge cases (what if there’s no road where I want to go?). This also stifles innovation (except for the persons designing the new processes, I suppose). But if you are people-oriented, then this can result in an inability to maintain quality or oversight across the team, and also can result in duplication of effort. (Imagine 3 or 4 trucks driving slowly side by side across a rocky field, instead of having a single bulldozer clear the way so the trucks can all follow a path and get across the field quickly. Now imagine some of those trucks getting stuck, or taking a non-optimal path across the field.)

Success will come with finding a way to utilize both approaches; understanding which situations and problems can be solved by a centralized approach, but still allow people to have freedom of motion to innovate when necessary. Your challenge, as a leader, is to understand and guide the organization through these approaches.

Share this:

One thought on “ being problem-oriented vs people-oriented, what’s the difference ”.

• Pingback: It’s All About People – Knuggets of Knowledge

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Self-Esteem

It’s ok you can’t solve every problem, trying to “fix" everything can leave you feeling like a failure..

Updated May 10, 2024 | Reviewed by Ray Parker

• What Is Self-Esteem?
• Find a therapist near me
• Your intrinsic value is more than what you can do for other people.

You are still worthwhile and can be successful, even if you don’t have all the solutions.

• Consider which decision will make you feel you’ve stayed true to your values.

In coaching others, I often discuss problem-solving strategies to help individuals think creatively and consider many options when they are faced with challenging situations.

Problem solving 1-2 includes the following:

• Define the problem, identify obstacles, and set realistic goals .
• Generate a variety of alternative solutions to overcome obstacles identified.
• Choose which idea has the highest likelihood to achieve the goal.
• Try out the solution in real-life and see if it worked or not.

Problem-solving strategies can be helpful in many situations. Thinking creatively and testing out different potential solutions can help you come up with alternative ways of solving your problems.

While many problems can be solved, there are also situations in which there is no “perfect” solution or in which what seems to be the best solution still leaves you feeling unsatisfied or like you’re not doing enough.

I encourage you to increase your comfort around the following three truths:

1. You can’t always solve everyone else’s problems.

2. You can’t always solve all of your own problems.

3. You are not a failure if you can’t solve every problem.

You can’t always solve everyone else’s problems.

When someone around you needs help, do you feel compelled to find solutions to their problem?

Are you seen as the problem solver at your job or in your close relationships?

Does it feel uncomfortable for you to listen to someone tell you about a problem and not offer solutions?

There are times when others come to you because they know you can help them solve a problem. There are also times when the other person is coming to you not for a solution to their problem, but for support, empathy, and a listening ear.

Your relationships may be negatively impacted if others feel that you don’t fully listen and only try to “fix” everything for them. While this may feel like a noble act, it may lead the other person to feel like they have failed or that you think they are unable to solve their own problems.

Consider approaching such situations with curiosity by saying to the other person:

• As you share this information with me, tell me how I can best support you.
• What would be most helpful right now? Are you looking for an empathetic ear or want to brainstorm potential next steps?
• I want to be sure I am as helpful as I can be right now; what are you hoping to get out of our conversation?

You can’t always solve all of your own problems.

We are taught from a young age that problems have a solution. For example, while solving word problems in math class may not have been your favorite thing to do, you knew there was ultimately a “right” answer. Many times, the real world is much more complex, and many of the problems that you face do not have clear or “right” answers.

You may often be faced with finding solutions that do the most good for the most amount of people, but you know that others may still be left out or feel unsatisfied with the result.

Your beliefs about yourself, other people, and the world can sometimes help you make decisions in such circumstances. You may ask for help from others. Some may consider their faith or spirituality for guidance. While others may consider philosophical theories.

Knowing that there often isn’t a “perfect” solution, you may consider asking yourself some of the following questions:

• What’s the healthiest decision I can make? The healthiest decision for yourself and for those who will be impacted.
• Imagine yourself 10 years in the future, looking back on the situation: What do you think the future-you would encourage you to do?
• What would a wise person do?
• What decision will allow you to feel like you’ve stayed true to your values?

You are not a failure if you can’t solve all of the problems.

If you have internalized feeling like you need to be able to solve every problem that comes across your path, you may feel like a failure each time you don’t.

It’s impossible to solve every problem.

Your intrinsic value is more than what you can do for other people. You have value because you are you.

Consider creating more realistic and adaptive thoughts around your ability to help others and solve problems.

Some examples include:

• I am capable, even without solving all of the problems.
• I am worthwhile, even if I’m not perfect.
• What I do for others does not define my worth.
• In living my values, I know I’ve done my best.

I hope you utilize the information above to consider how you can coach yourself the next time you:

• Start to solve someone else’s problem without being asked.
• Feel stuck in deciding the best next steps.
• Judge yourself negatively.

1. D'zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification. Journal of abnormal psychology, 78(1), 107.

2. D’Zurilla, T. J., & Nezu, A. M. (2010). Problem-solving therapy. Handbook of cognitive-behavioral therapies, 3(1), 197-225.

Julie Radico, Psy.D. ABPP, is a board-certified clinical psychologist and coauthor of You Will Get Through This: A Mental Health First-Aid Kit.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Problem solving: Helping understand why future orientation regulates emotion and benefits performances

• Published: 18 March 2022
• Volume 42 , pages 17898–17908, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Lei Zheng 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Yidi Chen 1 &
• Yiqun Gan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9886-6862 1  

904 Accesses

5 Citations

Explore all metrics

The present study examined whether future orientation can regulate emotions and benefit performance among employees and students and tested the mediation effect of planning in certain processes. In Study 1, a 3-wave assessment of future orientation, job burnout, and job engagement was conducted with 180 participants. Results showed that future orientation is positively related to job engagement, but negatively related to job burnout. In addition, planning serves as a mediator in the relationship between future orientation and job engagement and between future orientation and job burnout. In Study 2, 193 participants completed scales measuring the effects of future orientation, planning, task completion, and mood. Results showed that planning serves as a mediator in the relationship between future orientation and positive affect, between future orientation and negative affect, and between future orientation and academic performance. This research provides evidence that future orientation prepares individuals to successfully cope with stress through problem-solving strategies. Our findings that future orientation helps people cope with future barriers through planning highlight the importance of future orientation in the improvement of performance for either employees or students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Work-life balance: an integrative review.

Work–Life Balance: Definitions, Causes, and Consequences

A Critical Review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for Improving Work and Health

Data availability.

The datasets and code used in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Alexopoulos, G. S., Raue, P., & Areán, P. (2003). Problem-solving therapy versus supportive therapy in geriatric major depression with executive dysfunction. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 11 (1), 46–52.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Aspinwall, L. G. (2005). The psychology of future-oriented thinking: From achievement to proactive coping, adaptation, and aging. Motivation and Emotion, 29 , 203–235.

Article   Google Scholar  

Brown, W. T., & Jones, J. M. (2004). The substance of things hoped for: A study of the future orientation, minority status perceptions, academic engagement, and academic performance of black high school students. Journal of Black Psychology, 30 , 248–273.

Burker, E. J., Evon, D., Loiselle, M. M., Finkel, J., & Mill, M. (2005). Planning helps, behavioral disengagement does not: Coping and depression in the spouses of heart transplant candidates. Clinical Transplantation, 19 , 653–658.

Chaabna, K., Bhagat, S., Abraham, A., Doraiswamy, S., Mamtani, R., & Cheema, S. (2021). Perceived stress, stressor, and coping strategies among nursing students in the Middle East and North Africa: An overview of systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10 (1), 1–17.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chang, E. C., Wan, L., Li, P., Guo, Y., He, J., Gu, Y., ..., & Batterbee, C. N. H. (2017). Loneliness and suicidal risk in young adults: does believing in a changeable future help minimize suicidal risk among the lonely? The Journal of Psychology , 151 , 453-463.

Chang, O. D., Batra, M. M., Premkumar, V., Chang, E. C., & Hirsch, J. K. (2020). Future orientation, depression, suicidality, and interpersonal needs in primary care outpatients. Death Studies, 44 (2), 98–104.

Chishima, Y., Huai, C. L. I., & Wilson, A. E. (2021). Temporal distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Letter writing with future self can mitigate negative affect. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 13 (2), 406–418.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chen, P., & Vazsonyi, A. T. (2013). Future orientation, school contexts, and problem behaviors: A multilevel study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42 (1), 67–81.

Coote, H. M., & MacLeod, A. K. (2012). A self-help, positive goal-focused intervention to increase well-being in people with depression. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 19 , 305–315.

Cui, Z., Oshri, A., Liu, S., Smith, E. P., & Kogan, S. M. (2020). Child maltreatment and resilience: The promotive and protective role of future orientation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49 (10), 2075–2089.

Dreves, P. A., & Blackhart, G. C. (2019). Thinking into the future: How a future time perspective improves self-control. Personality and Individual Differences, 149 , 141–151.

El-Shormilisy, N., Strong, J., & Meredith, P. (2015). Associations among gender, coping patterns and functioning for individuals with chronic pain: a systematic review. Pain Research & Management, 20 (1), 48–55.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21 (3), 219–239.

Freitas, A. L., Salovey, P., & Liberman, N. (2001). Abstract and concrete self-evaluative goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 , 410.

Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (3), 351.

Gan, Y., Yang, M., Zhou, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2007). The two-factor structure of future-oriented coping and its mediating role in student engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 43 , 851–863.

Gan, Y., Miao, M., Zheng, L., & Liu, H. (2017). Temporal Doppler Effect and Future Orientation: Adaptive Function and Moderating Conditions. Journal of Personality, 85 , 313–325.

Gan, Y., Zheng, W., & Wen, Y. (2014). The Sequential Model of Future-Oriented Coping and Adjustment to University Life: The Role of Attitudes as Further Evidence. The Psychological Record, 64 , 13–20.

Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P. (2001). Negative life events, cognitive emotion regulation and emotional problems. Personality and Individual Differences, 30 , 1311–1327.

Germano, G., & Brenlla, M. E. (2021). Effects of time perspective and self-control on psychological distress: A cross-sectional study in an Argentinian sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 171 , 110512.

Ginevra, M. C., Pallini, S., Vecchio, G. M., Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (2016). Future orientation and attitudes mediate career adaptability and decidedness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 95 , 102–110.

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76 , 408–420.

Horstmanshof, L., & Zimitat, C. (2007). Future time orientation predicts academic engagement among first-year university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 , 703–718.

Hu, Y., & Gan, Y. (2011). Future-oriented coping and job hunting among college students. The Psychological Record, 61 , 253–268.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 , 1–55.

Jackson, A., Frydenberg, E., Liang, R., Higgins, R., & Murphy, B. (2015). Familial impact and coping with child heart disease: A systematic review. Pediatric Cardiology, 36 (4), 695–712.

Johnson, S. R., Blum, R. W., & Cheng, T. L. (2014). Future orientation: A construct with implications for adolescent health and wellbeing. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine & Health, 26 , 459–468.

Kahana, E., Kahana, B., & Zhang, J. (2005). Motivational antecedents of preventive proactivity in late life: Linking future orientation and exercise. Motivation and Emotion, 29 , 438–459.

Kahana, E., Kelley-Moore, J., & Kahana, B. (2012). Proactive aging: A longitudinal study of stress, resources, agency, and well-being in late life. Aging & Mental Health, 16 , 438–451.

Kooij, D., Kanfer, R., Betts, M., & Rudolph, C. W. (2018). Future time perspective: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103 (8), 867–893. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000306

Kross, E., & Ayduk, O. (2011). Making meaning out of negative experiences by self-distancing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 , 187–191.

Kwasnicka, D., Presseau, J., White, M., & Sniehotta, F. F. (2013). Does planning how to cope with anticipated barriers facilitate health-related behaviour change? A systematic review. Health Psychology Review, 7 , 129–145.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46 , 819.

Lazarus, R. S. (2006). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis . Springer Publishing Company.

Google Scholar  

Lachman, M. E., & Burack, O. R. (1993). Planning and control processes across the life span: An overview. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16 , 131–143.

Li, C., Shi, K., Luo, Z., Li, L., & Yang, R. (2003). An Investigation on Job Burnout of Doctor and Nurse. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 11 , 170–172.

Lin, W., Wang, L., Bamberger, P. A., Zhang, Q., Wang, H., Guo, W., ..., & Zhang, T. (2016). Leading future orientations for current effectiveness: The role of engagement and supervisor coaching in linking future work self-salience to job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 92 , 145-156.

Lim, J., Bogossian, F., & Ahern, K. (2010). Stress and coping in Australian nurses: A systematic review. International Nursing Review, 57 (1), 22–31.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9 (2), 151–173.

MacLeod, A. K., Coates, E., & Hetherton, J. (2008). Increasing well-being through teaching goal-setting and planning skills: Results of a brief intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9 , 185–196.

MacLeod, A. K., & Conway, C. (2005). Well-being and the anticipation of future positive experiences: The role of income, social networks, and planning ability. Cognition & Emotion, 19 (3), 357–374.

MacKinnon, D. P., & Luecken, L. J. (2008). How and for whom? Mediation and moderation in health psychology. Health Psychology, 27 , 99.

Macrynikola, N., Goklani, S., Slotnick, J., & Miranda, R. (2017). Positive future-oriented fantasies and depressive symptoms: Indirect relationship through brooding. Consciousness and Cognition, 51 , 1–9.

Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory. Palo Alto.

Oettingen, G., & Mayer, D. (2002). The motivating function of thinking about the future: Expectations versus fantasies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (5), 1198.

Oliver, J., & MacLeod, A. K. (2018). Working adults’ well-being: An online self-help goal-based intervention. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91 , 665–680.

Oshri, A., Duprey, E. B., Kogan, S. M., Carlson, M. W., & Liu, S. (2018). Growth patterns of future orientation among maltreated youth: A prospective examination of the emergence of resilience. Developmental Psychology, 54 (8), 1456.

Peetz, J., Wilson, A. E., & Strahan, E. J. (2009). So far away: The role of subjective temporal distance to future goals in motivation and behavior. Social Cognition, 27 , 475–495.

Petrocelli, J. V. (2003). Factor validation of the consideration of future consequences scale: Evidence for a short version. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143 (4), 405–413.

Przepiorka, A. (2012). The relationship between attitude toward time and the presence of meaning in life. International Journal of Applied Psychology, 2 , 22–30.

Reading, A. (2004). Hope and despair: How perceptions of the future shape human behavior . JHU Press.

Ren, X., Cang, X., & Ryder, A. G. (2021). An integrated ecological approach to mapping variations in collectivism within China: introducing the triple-line framework. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 15 , 1834490921991436.

Rhemtulla, M. (2016). Population performance of SEM parceling strategies under measurement and structural model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 21 (3), 348.

Schacter, D. L. (2012). Adaptive constructive processes and the future of memory. American Psychologist, 67 , 603.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66 , 701–716.

Schwartz, A., Eyal, T., & Tamir, M. (2018). Emotions and the big picture: The effects of construal level on emotional preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78 , 55–65.

Schwarzer, R. (2008). Modeling health behavior change: How to predict and modify the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors. Applied Psychology, 57 , 1–29.

Searle, B. J., & Lee, L. (2014). Proactive coping as a personal resource in the expanded job demands–resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 22 , 199–200.

Seginer, R. (2008). Future orientation in times of threat and challenge: How resilient adolescents construct their future. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32 , 272–282.

Seginer, R. (2016). Defensive Pessimism and Optimism Correlates of Adolescent Future Orientation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15 (3), 307–326.

Seginer, R., & Mahajna, S. (2018). Future orientation links perceived parenting and academic achievement: Gender differences among Muslim adolescents in Israel. Learning and Individual Differences, 67, 197–208.

Simkin, L. R., & Gross, A. M. (1994). Assessment of coping with high-risk situations for exercise relapse among healthy women. Health Psychology, 13 , 274.

Sniehotta, F. F., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2006). Action plans and coping plans for physical exercise: A longitudinal intervention study in cardiac rehabilitation. British Journal of Health Psychology, 11 , 23–37.

Sniehotta, F. F., Schwarzer, R., Scholz, U., & Schüz, B. (2005). Action planning and coping planning for long-term lifestyle change: Theory and assessment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35 , 565–576.

So, S., Gaylord-Harden, N. K., Voisin, D. R., & Scott, D. (2018). Future orientation as a protective factor for African American adolescents exposed to community violence. Youth & Society, 50 (6), 734–757.

Steinberg, L., Graham, S., O’Brien, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., & Banich, M. (2009). Age differences in future orientation and delay discounting. Child Development, 80 , 28–44.

Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (4), 742.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72 , 271–324.

Tenhula, W. N., Nezu, A. M., Nezu, C. M., Stewart, M. O., Miller, S. A., Steele, J., & Karlin, B. E. (2014). Moving forward: A problem-solving training program to foster veteran resilience. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45 (6), 416.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110 (3), 403.

Vilhauer, J. S., Young, S., Kealoha, C., Borrmann, J., IsHak, W. W., Rapaport, M. H., ..., & Mirocha, J. (2012). Treating major depression by creating positive expectations for the future: A pilot study for the effectiveness of future‐directed therapy (FDT) on symptom severity and quality of life. CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics , 18 , 102-109.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form.

Yang, Q., van den Bos, K., & Li, Y. (2021). Intolerance of uncertainty, future time perspective, and self-control. Personality and Individual Differences, 177 , 110810.

Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33 , 774–800.

Zacher, H. (2014). Individual difference predictors of change in career adaptability over time. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84 (2), 188–198.

Zheng, L., Chen, J., Li, X., & Gan, Y. (2021a). Inherited dreams: A twin study of future orientation and heritability among Chinese adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19 (2), 1–21.

Zheng, L., Chen, Y., & Gan, Y. (2021b). Future orientation helps regulate emotion in the future. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51 (9), 920–926.

Zheng, L., Lippke, S., Chen, Y., Li, D., & Gan, Y. (2019). Future orientation buffers depression in daily and specific stress. PsyCh Journal, 8 (3), 342–352.

Zheng, L., Luszczynska, A., Miao, M., Chen, Y., & Gan, Y. (2021c). Effects of Environmental Worry on Fruit and Vegetable Intake. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine , 1–11.

Zhu, X., Luo, F., Yao, S., Auerbach, R. P., & Abela, J. R. Z. (2007). Reliability and Validity of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire-Chinese Version. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15 , 121–124.

Download references

This research was funded by a research grant 20BSH139 and 20CSH073 from National Social Science Foundation of China.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences and Beijing Key Laboratory of Behavior and Mental Health, Peking University, 5 Yiheyuan Road, Beijing, 100871, China

Lei Zheng, Yidi Chen & Yiqun Gan

School of Economics and Management, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China

Center for China Social Trust Research, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China

Institute of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Y. Gan and L. Zheng developed the study concept. L. Zheng and Y. Gan contributed to the study design. Data collection were performed by L. Zheng and Y. Chen. Zheng and Y. Chen performed the data analysis and interpretation. L. Zheng and Y. Gan drafted the manuscript, and Y. Chen provided critical revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yiqun Gan .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

All participants gave the informed consent which was approved by the Ethics Committee of Peking University.

Conflicts of Interest

Additional information, publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (RAR 5 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Zheng, L., Chen, Y. & Gan, Y. Problem solving: Helping understand why future orientation regulates emotion and benefits performances. Curr Psychol 42 , 17898–17908 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02983-6

Download citation

Accepted : 02 March 2022

Published : 18 March 2022

Issue Date : July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02983-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Future orientation
• Problem solving
• Performance
• Job burnout
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Community-Oriented Policing and Problem-Oriented Policing

In 1979, Hermon Goldstein observed from several studies conducted at the time on standard policing practices that law enforcement agencies seemed to be more concerned about the means rather than the goals of policing. He argued that law enforcement agencies should shift away from the traditional, standard model of policing and that police become more proactive, rather than reactive, in their approaches to crime and disorder (Hinkle et al., 2020; Weisburd et al., 2010). Goldstein’s work set the stage for the development of two new models of policing: community-oriented policing (COP) and problem-oriented policing (POP).

COP is a broad policing strategy that relies heavily on community involvement and partnerships, and on police presence in the community, to address local crime and disorder. POP provides law enforcement agencies with an analytic method to develop strategies to prevent and reduce crime and disorder, which involves problem identification, analysis, response, and assessment (National Research Council, 2018).

Although COP and POP differ in many ways, including the intensity of focus and diversity of approaches (National Research Council, 2004), there are several important similarities between them. For example, COP and POP both represent forms of proactive policing, meaning they focus on preventing crime before it happens rather than just reacting to it after it happens. Further, both COP and POP require cooperation among multiple agencies and partners, including community members (National Research Council, 2018). In addition, POP and COP overlap in that each involves the community in defining the problems and identifying interventions (Greene, 2000).

Although few studies focus on youth involvement in COP and POP, youths can play an important role in both strategies. In COP, youths often are part of the community with whom police work to identify and address problems. Youths can be formally involved in the process (i.e., engaging in local community meetings) or informally involved in efforts to strengthen the relationship between the police and members of the community. For example, a police officer on foot patrol may decide to engage with youths in the community through casual conversation, as part of a COP approach (Cowell and Kringen, 2016). Or police might encourage youth to participate in activities, such as police athletic leagues, which were designed to prevent and reduce the occurrence of juvenile crime and delinquency, while also seeking to improve police and youth attitudes toward each other (Rabois and Haaga, 2002). Using POP, law enforcement agencies may specifically focus on juvenile-related problems of crime and disorder. For example, the Operation Ceasefire intervention, implemented in Boston, MA, is a POP strategy that concentrated on reducing homicide victimization among young people in the city (Braga and Pierce, 2005).

This literature review discusses COP and POP in two separate sections. In each section, definitions of the approaches are provided, along with discussions on theory, examples of specific types of programs, overlaps with other policing strategies, and outcome evidence.

Specific research on how police and youth interact with each other in the community will not be discussed in this review but can be found in the Interactions Between Youth and Law Enforcement literature review on the Model Programs Guide.  

Community-Oriented Policing Definition

Community-oriented policing (COP), also called community policing, is defined by the federal Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services as “a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systemic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime” (Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, 2012:3). This policing strategy focuses on developing relationships with members of the community to address community problems, by building social resilience and collective efficacy, and by strengthening infrastructure for crime prevention. COP also emphasizes preventive, proactive policing; the approach calls for police to concentrate on solving the problems of crime and disorder in neighborhoods rather than simply responding to calls for service. This model considerably expands the scope of policing activities, because the targets of interest are not only crimes but also sources of physical and social disorder (Weisburd et al., 2008).

After gaining acceptance as an alternative to traditional policing models in the 1980s, COP has received greater attention and been used more frequently throughout the 21st century (Greene, 2000; National Research Council, 2018; Paez and Dierenfeldt, 2020). The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 articulated the goal of putting 100,000 additional community police officers on the streets and established the federal Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services. Research from 2013 suggests that 9 out of 10 law enforcement agencies in the United States that serve a population of 25,000 or more had adopted some type of community policing strategy (Reaves, 2015).

COP comprises three key components (Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, 2012):

• Community Partnerships. COP encourages partnerships with stakeholders in the community, including other government agencies (prosecutors, health and human services, child support services and schools); community members/groups (volunteers, activists, residents, and other individuals who have an interest in the community); nonprofits/service providers (advocacy groups, victim groups, and community development corporations); and private businesses. The media also are an important mechanism that police use to communicate with the community.
• Organizational Transformation. COP emphasizes the alignment of management, structure, personnel, and information systems within police departments to support the philosophy. These changes may include increased transparency, leadership that reinforces COP values, strategic geographic deployment, training, and access to data.
• Problem-Solving. Proactive, systematic, routine problem-solving is the final key component of COP. COP encourages police to develop solutions to underlying conditions that contribute to public safety problems, rather than responding to crime only after it occurs. The SARA model (which stands for Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment) is one major conceptual model of problem-solving that can be used by officers (for a full description of the SARA model, see Problem-Oriented Policing below).

At the heart of COP is a redefinition of the relationship between the police and the community, so that the two collaborate to identify and solve community problems. Through this relationship, the community becomes a “co-producer” of public safety in that the problem-solving process draws on citizen expertise in identifying and understanding social issues that create crime, disorder, and fear in the community (Skolnick and Bayley, 1988; Gill et al., 2014; National Research Council, 2018).

COP is not a single coherent program; rather, it encompasses a variety of programs or strategies that rest on the assumption that policing must involve the community. Elements typically associated with COP programs include the empowerment of the community; a belief in a broad police function; the reliance of police on citizens for authority, information, and collaboration; specific tactics (or tactics that are targeted at particular problems, such as focused deterrence strategies) rather than general tactics (or tactics that are targeted at the general population, such as preventive patrol); and decentralized authority to respond to local needs (Zhao, He, and Lovrich, 2003). One Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) survey of MCCA members found that some of the most common COP activities were officer representation at community meetings, bicycle patrols, citizen volunteers, foot patrols, police “mini-stations” (see description below), and neighborhood storefront offices (Scrivner and Stephens, 2015; National Research Council, 2018).

Community members who engage in COP programs generally report positive experiences. For example, residents who received home visits by police officers as part of a COP intervention reported high confidence in police and warmth toward officers, compared with residents who did not receive visits (Peyton et al., 2019). Notably, however, those who participate in COP–related activities, such as community meetings, may not be representative of the whole community (Somerville, 2008). Many individuals in communities remain unaware of COP activities, and those who are aware may choose not to participate (Adams, Rohe, and Arcury, 2005; Eve et al., 2003). Additionally, it can be difficult to sustain community participation. While police officers are paid for their participation, community members are not, and involvement could take time away from family and work (Coquilhat, 2008).

Specific Types of COP Programs

Because COP is such a broad approach, programs that involve the community may take on many different forms. For example, some COP programs may take place in a single setting such as a community center, a school, or a police mini-station. Other COP–based programs, such as police foot patrol programs, can encompass the entire neighborhood. The following are different examples of specific types of COP programs and how they can affect youth in a community.

School Resource Officers (SROs) are an example of a commonly implemented COP program in schools. SROs are trained police officers who are uniformed, carry firearms and a police department badge, and have arrest powers. They are tasked with maintaining a presence at schools to promote safety and security (Stern and Petrosino, 2018). The use of SROs is not new; SRO programs first appeared in the 1950s but increased significantly in the 1990s as a response to high-profile incidents of extreme school violence and the subsequent policy reforms (Broll and Howells, 2019; Lindberg, 2015). SROs can fulfill a variety of roles. They are intended to prevent and respond to school-based crime; promote positive relationships among law enforcement, educators, and youth; and foster a positive school climate (Thomas et al., 2013).

The National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO), the largest professional organization of SROs, formally defines the SRO roles using a “triad model,” which aligns with community policing models (May et al., 2004), and includes the three primary functions of SROs: 1) enforcing the law; 2) educating students, school staff, and the community; and 3) acting as an informal counselor or mentor (Broll and Howells, 2019; Fisher and Hennessy, 2016; Javdani, 2019; Thomas et al., 2013). There may be significant variability in how these roles and responsibilities are balanced, as they are usually defined through a memorandum of understanding between the local law enforcement agency and the school district (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016). Even with the SRO responsibilities formally spelled out, there may still be tensions and ambiguities inherent to the SRO position based on their positioning at the intersection of the education system and the juvenile justice system, which often have competing cultures and authority structures (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016). As members of the police force, the SROs may view problematic behaviors as crimes, whereas educators view them as obstacles to learning. Another ambiguity is that as an informal counselor/mentor, the SRO is expected to assist students with behavioral and legal issues, which may result in a conflict of interest if the adolescent shares information about engaging in illegal activities (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016).

Evaluation findings with regard to the effectiveness of the presence of SROs in schools have been inconsistent. In terms of school-related violence and other behaviors, some studies have found that SROs in schools are related to decreases in serious violence (Sorensen, Shen, and Bushway, 2021; Zhang, 2019), and decreases in incidents of disorder (Zhang, 2019). Others have found increases in drug-related crimes (Gottfredson et al., 2020; Zhang, 2019) associated with the presence of SROs in schools, and other studies have shown no effects on bullying (Broll and Lafferty, 2018; Devlin, Santos, and Gottfredson, 2018). In terms of school discipline, one meta-analysis (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016) examined the relationship between the presence of SROs and exclusionary discipline in U.S. high schools. Analysis of the seven eligible pretest–posttest design studies showed that the presence of SROs was associated with rates of school-based disciplinary incidents that were 21 percent higher than incident rates before implementing an SRO program. However, in another study, of elementary schools, there was no association found between SRO presence and school-related disciplinary outcomes, which ranged from minor consequences, such as a warning or timeout, to more serious consequences such as suspension from school (Curran et al., 2021).

Further, several studies have been conducted on the effects of SROs on students’ attitudes and feelings. One example is a survey of middle and high school students (Theriot and Orme, 2016), which found that experiencing more SRO interactions increased students’ positive attitudes about SROs but decreased school connectedness and was unrelated to feelings of safety. Conversely, findings from a student survey, on the relationship between awareness and perceptions of SROs on school safety and disciplinary experiences, indicated that students’ awareness of the presence of SROs and their perceptions of SROs were associated with increased feelings of safety and a small decrease in disciplinary actions. However, students belonging to racial and ethnic minority groups reported smaller benefits related to SROs, compared with white students (Pentek and Eisenberg, 2018).

Foot Patrol is another example of a program that uses COP elements. Foot patrol involves police officers making neighborhood rounds on foot. It is a policing tactic that involves movement in a set area for the purpose of observation and security (Ratcliffe et al., 2011). The primary goals of foot patrol are to increase the visibility of police officers in a community and to make greater contact and increase rapport with residents. Officers sometimes visit businesses on their beat, respond to calls for service within their assigned areas, and develop an intimate knowledge of the neighborhood. Additionally, police officers on foot patrols may offer a level of “citizen reassurance” to community members and may decrease a resident’s fear of crime by bringing a feeling of safety to the neighborhood (Wakefield, 2006; Ratcliffe et al., 2011; Walker and Katz, 2017). Another duty of foot patrol officers is to engage youth in the community, and some are instructed to go out of their way to engage vulnerable youth. For example, if an officer sees a group of youths hanging out on a street corner, the officer may stop and initiate casual conversation in an effort to build a relationship (Cowell and Kringen, 2016).

Though foot patrols limit the speed at which an officer can respond to a call (compared with patrol in a vehicle), research has found that community members are more comfortable with police being in the neighborhood on foot. Residents are more likely to consider an officer as “being there for the neighborhood” if they are seen on foot (Cordner, 2010; Piza and O’Hara, 2012).

While there are mixed findings regarding the effectiveness of foot patrols on crime (Piza and O’Hara, 2012), improved community relationships are one of the strongest benefits. Research has shown that foot patrol improves the relationships between community members and police officers through increasing approachability, familiarity, and trust Ratcliffe et al. 2011; Kringen, Sedelmaier, and Dlugolenski, 2018). Foot patrols can also have a positive effect on officers. Research demonstrates that officers who participate in foot patrol strategies have higher job satisfaction and a higher sense of achievement (Wakefield, 2006; Walker and Katz, 2017).

Mini-Stations are community-forward stations that allow police to be more accessible to members of a community. Mini-stations (also known as substations, community storefronts, and other names) can be based in many places—such as local businesses, restaurants, or community centers—and can be staffed by police officers, civilian employees, volunteers, or a combination of these groups, and have fewer officers stationed in them (Maguire et al., 2003). These stations allow officers to build on existing relationships with businesses in the area and give citizens easier access to file reports and share community concerns. Additionally, they are a means to achieving greater spatial differentiation, or a way for a police agency to cover a wider area, without the cost of adding a new district station (Maguire et al., 2003). Residents can also go to mini-stations to receive information and handouts about new policing initiatives and programs in the community. Police mini-stations also increase the overall amount of time officers spend in their assigned patrol areas. The concept of mini-stations stems from Japanese kobans , which gained prominence in the late 1980s. Officers who worked in kobans became intimately familiar with the neighborhood they served and were highly accessible to citizens (usually within a 10-minute walk of residential homes) [Young, 2022].

Mini-stations can also be helpful to youth in the community. For example, Youth Safe Haven mini-stations are mini-stations that are deployed in 10 cities by the Eisenhower Foundation. These mini-stations were first developed in the 1980s and are located in numerous youth-related areas, including community centers and schools (Eisenhower Foundation, 2011). In addition to crime outcomes (such as reduced crime and fear of crime), goals of youth-oriented mini-stations include homework help, recreational activities, and providing snacks and social skills training. Older youths can be trained to be volunteers to assist younger youths with mentoring and advocacy. There are mixed findings regarding mini-stations and their effect on crime rates, but research has shown that adults and older youths who participate in mini-station community programs (or have children who participate) are more likely to report crime, and younger youths are more comfortable speaking with police (Eisenhower Foundation, 1999; Eisenhower Foundation, 2011).

Theoretical Foundation

COP approaches are usually rooted in two different theories of crime: broken windows theory and social disorganization theory (Reisig, 2010; National Research Council, 2018). Both focus on community conditions to explain the occurrence of crime and disorder.

Broken Windows Theory asserts that minor forms of physical and social disorder, if left unattended, may lead to more serious crime and urban decay (Wilson and Kelling, 1982). Visual signs of disorder (such as broken windows in abandoned buildings, graffiti, and garbage on the street) may cause fear and withdrawal among community members. This in turn communicates the lack of or substantial decrease in social control in the community, and thus can invite increased levels of disorder and crime (Hinkle and Weisburd, 2008). In response, to protect the community and establish control, the police engage in order maintenance (managing minor offenses and disorders). Four elements of the broken windows strategy explain how interventions based on this approach may lead to crime reduction (Kelling and Coles, 1996). First, dealing with disorder puts police in contact with those who commit more serious crimes. Second, the high visibility of police causes a deterrent effect for potential perpetrators of crime. Third, citizens assert control over neighborhoods, thereby preventing crime. And finally, as problems of disorder and crime become the responsibility of both the community and the police, crime is addressed in an integrated fashion. COP programs rooted in broken windows theory often use residents and local business owners to help identify disorder problems and engage in the development and implementation of a response (Braga, Welsh, and Schnell, 2015).

Social Disorganization Theory focuses on the relationship between crime and neighborhood structure; that is, how places can create conditions that are favorable or unfavorable to crime and delinquency (Kubrin and Weitzer, 2003). Social disorganization refers to the inability of a community to realize common goals and solve chronic problems. According to the social disorganization theory, community factors such as poverty, residential mobility, lack of shared values, and weak social networks decrease a neighborhood’s capacity to control people’s behavior in public, which increases the likelihood of crime (Kornhauser, 1978; Shaw and McKay, 1969 [1942]). Researchers have used various forms of the social disorganization theory to conceptualize community policing, including the systemic model and collective efficacy (Reisig, 2010). The systemic model focuses on how relational and social networks can exert social controls to mediate the adverse effects of structural constraints, such as concentrated poverty and residential instability. The model identifies three social order controls with decreasing levels of influence: 1) private, which includes close friends and family; 2) parochial , which includes neighbors and civic organizations; and 3) public, which includes police (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993; Hunter, 1985). Community policing efforts based on the systemic model can increase informal social controls by working with residents to develop stronger regulatory mechanisms at the parochial and public levels (Kubrin and Weitzer, 2003; Resig, 2010). Collective efficacy, which refers to social cohesion and informal social controls, can mitigate social disorganization. Community policing can promote collective efficacy by employing strategies that enhance police legitimacy in the community and promote procedurally just partnerships, to encourage residents to take responsibility for public spaces and activate local social controls (Resig, 2010).

Outcome Evidence

Although there are numerous programs that incorporate COP, there are limited examples of COP programs that directly target youth, and fewer that have been rigorously evaluated (Forman, 2004; Paez and Dierenfeldt, 2020). The following programs, which are featured on CrimeSolutions , are examples of how COP has been implemented and evaluated in different cities.

The Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS , developed in 1993, incorporates aspects of both community and problem-oriented policing (see Problem-Oriented Policing, below). The CAPS approach has been implemented by dividing patrol officers into beat teams and rapid response teams in each of the districts. Beat teams spend most of their time working their beats with community organizations, while rapid response teams concentrate their efforts on excess or low-priority 911 calls. Meetings occur monthly for both teams, and they receive extensive training. This structure enables officers to respond quickly and effectively to problems that they have not been traditionally trained to handle but have learned how to do by receiving training, along with residents, in problem-solving techniques. Civic education, media ads, billboards, brochures, and rallies have been used to promote awareness of the program in the community (Skogan, 1996; Kim and Skogan, 2003).

To evaluate the effects of the CAPS program, one study (Kim and Skogan, 2003) examined the impact on crime rates and 911 calls. Data were collected from January 1996 to June 2002, using a time-series analysis. The study authors found statistically significant reductions in crime rates and 911 calls in police beats that implemented the CAPS program, compared with police beats that did not implement the program.

Some studies have found that foot-patrol interventions make varying impacts on different types of street violence. Operation Impact , a saturation foot-patrol initiative in the Fourth Precinct of Newark, NJ, was selected as the target area based on an in-depth analysis of the spatial distribution of street violence. The initiative primarily involved a nightly patrol of 12 officers in a square-quarter-mile area of the city, which represented an increase in police presence in the target area. Officers also engaged in proactive enforcement actions that were expected to disrupt street-level disorder and narcotics activity in violence-prone areas. One study (Piza and O’Hara, 2012) found that the target area that implemented Operation Impact experienced statistically significant reductions in overall violence, aggravated assaults, and shootings, compared with the control area that implemented standard policing responses. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the target and control areas in incidents of murder or robbery.

With regard to community-based outcomes, other studies have shown that COP programs have demonstrated positive results. A COP intervention implemented in New Haven, CT , consisted of a single unannounced community home visit conducted by uniformed patrol officers from the New Haven Police Department. During the visits, the patrol officers articulated their commitment to building a cooperative relationship with residents and the importance of police and residents working together to keep the community safe. One evaluation found that residents in intervention households who received the COP intervention reported more positive overall attitudes toward police, a greater willingness to cooperate with police, had more positive perceptions of police performance and legitimacy, had higher confidence in police, reported higher scores on perceived warmth toward police, and reported fewer negative beliefs about police, compared with residents who did not receive home visits. These were all statistically significant findings. However, there was no statistically significant difference in willingness to comply with the police between residents in households that received home visits, compared with those who did not (Peyton et al., 2019).

Problem-Oriented Policing Definition

Problem-oriented policing (POP) is a framework that provides law enforcement agencies with an iterative approach to identify, analyze, and respond to the underlying circumstances that lead to crime and disorder in the community and then evaluate and adjust the response as needed (Braga et al., 2001; Hinkle et al., 2020; National Research Council, 2004). The POP approach requires police to focus their attention on problems rather than incidents (Cordner and Biebel, 2005). Problems, in this model, are defined “as chronic conditions or clusters of events that have become the responsibility of the police, either because they have been reported to them, or they have been discovered by proactive police investigation, or because the problems have been found in an investigation of police records” (National Research Council, 2004:92).

The POP strategy contrasts with incident-driven crime prevention approaches, in which police focus on individual occurrences of crime. Instead, POP provides police with an adaptable method to examine the complicated factors that contribute and lead to crime and disorder, and develop customized interventions to address those factors (National Research Council, 2018).

As noted previously, the idea behind the POP approach emanated several decades ago (Goldstein, 1979) from observations that law enforcement agencies seemed to be more concerned about the means rather than the goals of policing, or “means-over-ends syndrome” (Goldstein, 1979; Eck, 2006; MacDonald, 2002). In 1990, this work was expanded to systematically define and describe what it meant to use POP approaches in policing. During the 1990s, law enforcement agencies in the United States and other countries (such as Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom) began to implement POP strategies (Scott, 2000).

The traditional conceptual model of problem-solving in POP, known as the SARA model, consists of the following four steps (Weisburd et al., 2010; Hinkle et al., 2020; National Research Council, 2004):

• Scanning. Police identify problems that may be leading to incidents of crime and disorder. They may prioritize these problems based on various factors, such as the size of the problem or input from the community.
• Analysis. Police study information about the identified problem or problems, using a variety of data sources, such as crime databases or surveys of community members. They examine information on who is committing crimes, victims, and crime locations, among other factors. Police then use the information on responses to incidents — together with information obtained from other sources — to get a clearer picture of the problem (or problems).
• Response. Police develop and implement tailored strategies to address the identified problems by thinking “outside the box” of traditional police enforcement tactics and creating partnerships with other agencies, community organizations, or members of the community, depending on the problem. Examples of responses in POP interventions include target hardening, area cleanup, increased patrol, crime prevention through environmental design measures, multiagency cooperation, and nuisance abatement.
• Assessment. Police evaluate the impact of the response through self-assessments and other methods (such as process or outcome evaluations) to determine how well the response has been carried out and what has been accomplished (or not accomplished). This step may also involve adjustment of the response, depending on the results of the assessment.

The SARA model was first defined by a POP project conducted in Newport News, VA, during the 1980s. The Newport News Task Force designed a four-stage problem-solving process . A case study of the project revealed that officers and their supervisors identified problems, analyzed, and responded to these problems through this process, thus leading to the SARA model (Eck and Spelman, 1987).

Since the creation and development of SARA, other models have been established, in part to overcome some noted weaknesses of the original model, such as an oversimplification of complex processes or a process in which problem-solving is nonlinear. These other models include the following 1) PROCTOR (which stands for PROblem, Cause, Tactic or Treatment, Output, and Result); 2) the 5I’s (Intelligence, Intervention, Implementation, Involvement, and Impact); and 3) the ID PARTNERS (which stands for I dentify the demand; D rivers; P roblem; A im, R esearch and analysis; T hink creatively; N egotiate and initiate responses; E valuate; R eview; and S uccess) [Sidebottom and Tilley, 2010]. However, compared with these models, the SARA model appears to be used more often by agencies that apply a POP approach to law enforcement (Sidebottom and Tilley, 2010; Borrion et al., 2020).

A POP approach can be used by law enforcement agencies to address youth-related issues, including offenses committed by youths (such as gun violence, vandalism, graffiti, and other youth-specific behaviors such as running away from home or underage drinking.

For example, in the 2019–20 school year, about one third of public schools experienced vandalism (Wang et al., 2022). If a police agency wanted to tackle the problem of school vandalism , often committed by youth, they could apply the SARA model to determine the scope of the problem, develop an appropriate response, and conduct an overall assessment of efforts. A problem-oriented guide, put together by the Problem-Oriented Policing Center at Arizona State University, outlines the steps that law enforcement agencies can take to use the SARA model and address the issues of vandalism committed specifically at schools (Johnson, 2005).

Thus, during the scanning step of the SARA model, to identify the problem police would focus on the specific problem of school vandalism by examining multiple sources of data, including information gathered from both police departments and school districts. During the analysis step, police would ask about the specific school vandalism problems they are targeting, such as 1) how many and which schools reported vandalism to the police, 2) which schools were vandalized, 3) what are the characteristics (such as the age, gender, school attendance rate) of any youth identified as committing the vandalism, and 4) on what days and times the vandalism occurred. The analysis step also should include information from various data sources, including official reports to the police of school vandalism incidents, interviews with SROs, and information from students at the school (Johnson, 2005).

Once police have analyzed the school vandalism problem and have a clear picture of the issue, they would then move on to the response step. The response depends on what police learn about the vandalism problem at schools. For example, if police find that vandalism occurs because youths have easy access to school grounds, especially after school hours, they might suggest a response that improves building security. Finally, during the assessment stage, police would determine the degree of effectiveness of their response to school vandalism through various measures of success, such as the reduction in the number of incidents of vandalism, the decrease in the costs for repair of damaged property, and the increase of incidents (when they do occur) in which the person or persons who engaged in vandalism are identified and apprehended (Johnson, 2005).

Overlap of POP With Other Policing Strategies

POP shares several similarities and overlapping features with other policing models, such as focused deterrence strategies and hot-spots policing. Hot-spots policing involves focusing police resources on crime “hot spots,” which are specific areas in the community where crime tends to cluster. Hot-spots policing interventions tend to rely mostly on traditional law enforcement approaches (National Research Council, 2004; Braga et al., 2019). Focused deterrence strategies (also referred to as “pulling levers” policing) follow the core principles of deterrence theory. These strategies target specific criminal behavior committed by a small number of individuals who repeatedly offend and who are vulnerable to sanctions and punishment (Braga, Weisburd, and Turchan, 2018).

While POP, focused deterrence, and hot spots policing are three distinct policing strategies, there can be an overlap in techniques. For example, a POP approach can involve the identification and targeting of crime hot spots, if the scanning and analysis of the crime problems in a community reveal that crime is clustering in specific areas. Further, a hot-spots policing intervention may use a problem-oriented approach to determine appropriate responses to address the crime in identified hot spots. However, POP can go beyond examination of place-based crime problems, and hot-spots policing does not require the detailed analytic approach used in POP to discern which strategy is appropriate to prevent or reduce crime (Hinkle et al., 2020; National Research Council, 2018; Gill et al., 2018). Similarly, POP involves targeting resources to specific, identified problems, in a similar way that focused deterrence strategies target specific crimes committed by known high-risk offenders. However, focused deterrence strategies tend to rely primarily on police officers to implement programs, whereas POP may involve a variety of agencies and community members (National Research Council, 2004).

Although POP, focused deterrence, and hot-spots policing differ in some distinct ways (such as intensity of focus and involvement of other agencies), these strategies may often overlap (National Research Council, 2004).

POP draws on theories of criminal opportunity to explain why crime occurs and to identify ways of addressing crime, often by altering environmental conditions (Reisig, 2010). While much criminological research and theory are concerned with why some individuals offend in general, POP strategies often concentrate on why individuals commit crimes at particular places, at particular times, and against certain targets (Braga, 2008; Goldstein, 1979; Eck and Spelman, 1987; Eck and Madensen, 2012). Thus, POP draws on several theoretical perspectives that focus on how likely individuals (including those who may commit a crime and those who may be victimized) make decisions based on perceived opportunities. These include rational choice theory, routine activities theory , and situational crime prevention (Braga, 2008; Braga et al., 1999; Eck and Madensen, 2012; Hinkle et al., 2020; McGarrell, Freilich, and Chermak, 2007). These three theories are considered complements to one another (Tillyer and Eck, 2011).

Rational Choice Theory focuses on how incentives and constraints affect behavior (Cornish and Clark 1986; Gull, 2009). In criminology, rational choice theory draws on the concepts of free will and rational thinking to examine an individual’s specific decision-making processes and choices of crime settings by emphasizing their motives in different situations. The starting point for rational choice theory is that crime is chosen for its benefits. Thus, rational choice theory informs POP by helping to examine and eliminate opportunities for crime within certain settings. Eliminating these opportunities should help to intervene with a potential offender’s motives to commit a crime (Karğın, 2010).

Routine Activity Theory , formulated by Cohen and Felson (1979), is the study of crime as an event, highlighting its relation to space and time and emphasizing its ecological nature (Mir ó–Llinares , 2014). It was originally developed to explain macro-level crime trends through the interaction of targets, offenders, and guardians (Eck, 2003). The theory explains that problems are created when offenders and targets repeatedly come together, and guardians fail to act. Since its formulation, routine activity theory has expanded. In terms of POP, routine activity theory implies that crime can be prevented if the chances of the three elements of crime (suitable target, motivated offender, and accessible place) intersecting at the same place and at the same time are minimized (Karğın, 2010). The SARA problem-solving methodology allows law enforcement agencies to examine and identify the features of places and potential targets that might generate crime opportunities for a motivated offender and develop solutions to eliminate these opportunities, thereby preventing future crime (Hinkle et al., 2020).

Situational Crime Prevention was designed to address specific forms of crime by systematically manipulating or managing the immediate environment with the purpose of reducing opportunities for crime. The goal is to change an individual’s decisionmaking processes by altering the perceived costs and benefits of crime by identifying specific settings (Clarke, 1995; Tillyer and Eck, 2011). Situational crime prevention has identified a number of ways to reduce opportunity to commit crime, such as: 1) increase the effort required to carry out the crime, 2) increase the risks faced in completing the crime, 3) reduce the rewards or benefits expected from the crime, 4) remove excuses to rationalize or justify engaging in criminal action, and 5) avoid provocations that may tempt or incite individuals into criminal acts (Clarke 2009). Certain POP strategies make use of situation crime prevention tactics during the response phase, such as physical improvements to identified problem locations. These may include fixing or installing street lighting, securing vacant lots, and getting rid of trash from the streets (Braga et al., 1999).

Although the POP approach is a well-known and popular approach in law enforcement, there have been a limited number of rigorous program evaluations, such as randomized controlled trials (National Research Council 2018; Gill et al. 2018), and even fewer evaluations specifically centered on youth. 

One meta-analysis (Weisburd et al., 2008) reviewed 10 studies, which examined the effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder. These included various POP interventions and took place in eight cities across the United States (Atlanta, GA; Jersey City, NJ; Knoxville, TN; Oakland, CA; Minneapolis, MN; Philadelphia, PA; San Diego, CA; and one suburban Pennsylvania area.) and six wards in the United Kingdom. The studies evaluated interventions focused on reducing recidivism for individuals on probation or parole; interventions on specific place-based problems (such as drug markets, vandalism and drinking in a park, and crime in hot spots of violence); and interventions that targeted specific problems such as school victimization. Findings across these studies indicated that, on average, the POP strategies led to a statistically significant decline in measures of crime and disorder.

The following programs, which are featured on CrimeSolutions, provide a brief overview of how POP has been implemented and evaluated in the United States. Programs with examined youth-related outcomes or a specific focus on youth are noted; however, most of the research on POP interventions does not focus on youth.

Operation Ceasefire in Boston (first implemented in 1995) is a problem-oriented policing strategy that was developed to reduce gang violence, illegal gun possession, and gun violence in communities. Specifically, the program focused on reducing homicide victimization among young people in Boston (Braga and Pierce, 2005). The program involved carrying out a comprehensive strategy to apprehend and prosecute individuals who carry firearms, to put others on notice that carrying illegal firearms faces certain and serious punishment, and to prevent youth from following in the same criminal path. The program followed the steps of the SARA model, which included bringing together an interagency working group of criminal justice and other practitioners to identify the problem (scanning); using different research techniques (both qualitative and quantitative) to assess the nature of youth violence in Boston ( analysis ); designing and developing an intervention to reduce youth violence and homicide in the city, implementing the intervention, and adapting it as needed ( response ); and evaluating the intervention’s impact ( assessment ). An evaluation of the program found a statistically significant reduction (63 percent) in the average number of youth homicide victims in the city following the implementation of the program. There were also statistically significant decreases in citywide gun assaults and calls for service (Braga et al., 2001). Similarly, another study found a statistically significant reduction (24.3 percent) in new handguns recovered from youth (Braga and Pierce, 2005).

Another program implemented in the same city, the Boston Police Department’s Safe Street Teams (SSTs) , is an example of a place-based, problem-oriented policing strategy to reduce violent crime and includes some components targeting youth. Using mapping technology and violent index crime data, the Boston Police Department identified 13 violent crime hot spots in the city where SST officers could employ community- and problem-oriented policing techniques such as the SARA model. SST officers implemented almost 400 distinct POP strategies in the crime hot spots, which fell into three broad categories: 1) situational/environment interventions, such as removing graffiti and trash or adding or fixing lighting, designed to change the underlying characteristics and dynamics of the places that are linked to violence; 2 ) enforcement interventions, including focused enforcement efforts on drug-selling crews and street gangs, designed to arrest and deter individuals committing violent crimes or contributing to the disorder of the targeted areas; and 3) community outreach/social service interventions, designed to involve the community in crime prevention efforts. Examples of these activities included providing new recreational opportunities for youth (i.e., basketball leagues), partnering with local agencies to provide needed social services to youth, and planning community events. One evaluation (Braga, Hureau, and Papachristos, 2011) found that over a 10-year observation period areas that implemented the SSTs interventions experienced statistically significant reductions in the number of total violent index crime incidents (17.3 percent), in the number of robbery incidents (19.2 percent), and in the number of aggravated assault incidents (15.4 percent), compared with the comparison areas that did not implement the interventions. However, there were no statistically significant effects on the number of homicides or rape/sexual assault incidents. The study also did not examine the impact on youth-specific outcomes.

The Problem-Oriented Policing in Violent Crime Places (Jersey City, N.J.) intervention used techniques from hot spots policing and POP to reduce violent crime in the city. The program and evaluation design followed the steps of the SARA model. During the scanning phase, the Jersey City Police Department and university researchers used computerized mapping technologies to identify violent crime hot spots. During the analysis phase, officers selected 12 pairs of places for random assignment to the treatment group, which received the POP strategies, or to the control group. During the response phase, the 11 officers in the department’s Violent Crime Unit were responsible for developing appropriate POP strategies at the hot spots. For example, to reduce social disorder, aggressive order maintenance techniques were applied, including the use of foot and radio patrols and the dispersing of groups of loiterers. During the assessment phase, the police department evaluated the officers’ responses to the problems, and either adjusted the strategies or closed down the program to indicate that the problem was alleviated. An evaluation found statistically significant reductions in social and physical incivilities (i.e., disorder), the total numbers of calls for service, and criminal incidents at the treatment locations that implemented POP techniques, compared with the control locations (Braga et al., 1999).

COP and POP are two broad policing approaches that, while sharing many characteristics, are still distinct—owing to the focus of their respective approaches. COP’s focus is on community outreach and engagement and does not necessarily rely on analysis methods such as the SARA model. For POP, the primary goal is to find effective solutions to problems that may or may not involve the participation of the community (Gill et al., 2014).

Though COP and POP may differ in their approaches, the end goal is the same in both models. Both are types of proactive policing that seek to prevent crime before it happens. COP and POP also both rely on cooperation from numerous different parties and agencies, including community members (National Research Council, 2018). The two models are similar enough that they often overlap in implementation. For example, the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) incorporates elements from both models. Using aspects of COP, police officers divide into beat teams and spend most of their time working with community organizations. With regard to POP, CAPS trains officers and residents to use problem-solving techniques that stem from its theoretical basis (Skogan, 1996; Kim and Skogan, 2003).

There are, however, limitations in the research examining the effectiveness of these models. For example, evaluation studies on COP and POP tend to focus on results related to crime and disorder; other outcomes, such as collective efficacy, police legitimacy, fear of crime, and other community-related outcomes are often overlooked or not properly defined (Hinkle et al., 2020; Gill et al., 2014). Exploring other community-related outcomes would be useful, as community involvement is an important component to both models. Further, some researchers have noted specific limitations to the implementation of COP and POP interventions. With regard to COP programs, for example, the definition of “community” is sometimes lacking. This can be an important factor to define, as community may mean something different across law enforcement agencies (Gill et al., 2014). Regarding POP programs, it has been noted that the rigor of the SARA process is limited and that law enforcement agencies may take a “shallow” approach to problem-solving (National Research Council, 2018:193; Borrion et al., 2020). To date, the research on both models has lacked focus on youth; only a few evaluations have focused on youth in either in the implementation process or in examined outcomes (Braga et al., 2001; Gill et al., 2018). Despite these limitations, however, the outcome evidence supports the effectiveness of COP and POP interventions to reduce crime and disorder outcomes.

Adams, R.E., Rohe, W.M., and Arcury, T.A. 2005. Awareness of community-oriented policing and neighborhood perceptions in five small to midsize cities. Journal of Criminal Justice 33(1):43–54.

Borrion, H., Eckblom, P., Alrajeh, D., Borrion, A.L., Keane, A., Koch, D., Mitchener–Nissen, T., and Toubaline, S. 2020. The problem with crime problem-solving: Towards a second-generation POP? British Journal of Criminology 60:219–240.

Braga, A.A. 2008.  Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention . Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Braga, A.A., Hureau, D.M, and Papachristos, A.V. 2011. An ex post facto evaluation framework for place-based police interventions. Evaluation Review 35(6):592–626.

Braga, A.A., Kennedy, D., Waring, E., and Piehl, A.M. 2001. Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 28(3):195–225.

Braga, A.A., and Pierce, G.L. 2005. Disrupting illegal firearms markets in Boston: The effects of Operation Ceasefire on the supply of new handguns to criminals. Criminology & Public Policy 4(4):717–748.

Braga, A.A., Turchan, B., Papachristos, A.V., and Hureau, D.M. 2019. Hot spots policing of small geographic areas effects on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews 15:e1046.

Braga, A.A., Weisburd, D.L., Waring, E.J., Mazerolle, L.G., Spelman, W., and Gajewski, F. 1999. Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment. Criminology 37(3):541–580.

Braga, A.A., Weisburd, D.L., and Turchan, B. 2018. Focused deterrence strategies and crime control: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Criminology & Public Policy 17(1):202–250.

Braga, AA., Welsh, B.C., and Schnell, C. 2015. Can policing disorder reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 52(4):567–588.

Broll, R., and Howells, S. 2019. Community policing in schools: Relationship-building and the responsibilities of school resource officers. Policing 15(2):201–215.

Broll, R., and Lafferty, R. 2018. Guardians of the hallways? School resources officers and bullying. Safer Communities doi: 10.1108/SC–06–2018–0018

Bursik, R.J. Jr., and Grasmick, H.G. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Clarke, R.V. 1995. Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies . Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.

Clarke, R.V. 2009. Situational crime prevention: Theoretical background and current practice. In Handbook on Crime and Deviance , edited by M.D. Krohn, A.J. Lizotte, and G.P Hall. New York, NY: Springer.

Cohen, L., and Felson, M. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44:588–608.

Coquilhat, J. 2008. Community Policing: An International Literature Review. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Police Association Incorporated.

Cordner, G. 2010. Reducing Fear of Crime: Strategies for Police , Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Cordner, G., and Biebel, E.P. 2005. Problem-oriented policing in practice. Criminology 4(2):155–180.

Cornish, D.B., and Clarke, R.V., eds. 1986. The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending . New York, NY: Springer.

Cowell, B.M., and Kringen, A.L. 2016. Engaging Communities One Step at a Time: Policing’s Tradition of Foot Patrol as an Innovative Community Engagement Strategy. Washington DC: Police Foundation.

Curran, F.C., Viano, S., Kupchik, A., and Fisher, B.W. 2021. Do interactions with School Resource Officers predict students’ likelihood of being disciplined and feelings of safety? Mixed-methods evidence from two school districts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 43(2):183–361.

Devlin, D.N., Santos, M.R., and Gottfredson, D.C. 2018. An evaluation of police officers in schools as a bullying intervention. Evaluation and Program Planning 71:12–21.

Eck, J.E. 2003. Police problems: The complexity of problem theory, research, and evaluation. In  Problem-Oriented Policing: From Innovation to Mainstream, edited by J. Knutsson. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 79–113.

Eck, J.E. 2006. Advocate: Science, values, and problem-oriented policing: Why problem-oriented policing? In Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives, edited by D.L. Weisburd and A.A Braga. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 117–132.

Eck, J.E., and Madensen, T.D. 2012. Situational crime prevention makes problem-oriented policing work. In The Reasoning Criminologist: Essays in Honour of Ronald V. Clarke , edited by N. Tilley and G. Farrell. New York, NY: Routledge.

Eck, J.E., and Spelman, W. 1987. Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News . Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Eisenhower Foundation. 1999. Youth Investment and Police Mentoring Final HUD Evaluation . Washington, DC.

Eisenhower Foundation. 2011. Youth Investment and Police Mentoring: The Third Generation Principal Findings. Washington, DC.

Eve, R.A., Rodeheaver, D.G., Eve, S.B., Hockenberger, M., Perez, R., Burton, K., Boyd, L., Phillips, S., and Walker, S.L. 2003. Community-oriented policing in a multicultural milieu: The case of loitering and disorderly conduct in East Arlington, Texas. International Journal of Police Science & Management 5(4):245–264.

Fisher, B.W., and Hennessy, E.A. 2016. School resources officers and exclusionary discipline in U.S. high schools: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Adolescent Research Review 1:217–233.

Forman Jr., J. 2004. Community policing and youth as assets. Criminal Law & Criminology 95(1):1–48.

Gill, C., Weisburd, D.L., Telep, C.W., Vitter, Z., and Bennett, T. 2014. Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder, and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: A systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology 10(4):399–428.

Gill, C., Weisburd, D., Vitter, Z., Shader, C.G., Nelson–Zager, T., and Spain, L. 2018. Collaborative problem-solving at youth crime hot spots: A pilot study. Policing: An International Journal 41(3):325–338.

Goldstein, H. 1979. Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime and Delinquency 25:236–258.

Gottfredson, D.C., Crosse, S., Tang, Z., Bauer, E.L., Harmon, M.A. Hagen, C.A., and Greene A.D. 2020. Effects of school resource officers on school crime and responses to school crime. Criminology and Public Policy 19(3):905–940.

Greene, J.R. 2000. Community Policing in America: Changing the Nature, Structure, and Function of the Police—Vol. 3: Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System : Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

Gul, S. 2009. An evaluation of rational choice theory in criminology.  Girne American University Journal of Sociology and Applied Science 4(8):36–44.

Hinkle, J.C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C.W., and Petersen, K. 2020. Problem-oriented policing for reducing crime and disorder: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews 16:e1089.

Hinkle, J.C., and Weisburd, D.L. 2008. The irony of broken windows policing: A micro-place study of the relationship between disorder, focused police crackdowns, and fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice 36:503–512.

Hunter, A. 1985. Private, parochial, and public social orders: The problem of crime and incivility in urban communities. In The Challenge of Social Control: Citizenship and Institution Building, edited by G.D. Suttles and M.N. Zald. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Javdani, S. 2019. Policing education: An empirical review of the challenges and impact of the work of school police officers. American Journal of Community Psychology 63:252–269.

Johnson, K.D. 2005. School vandalism and break-ins. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, Problem-Specific Guides Series. No. 35. Washington, DC: Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Karğın, V. 2010. Does problem-oriented policing prevent crime? Polis Bilimleri Dergisi 12(3).

Kelling, G.L. 1999. Broken Windows and Police Discretion . Research Report. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, NIJ.

Kelling, G.L., and Coles, C.M. 1996. Fixing Broken Windows. New York, NY: Free Press.

Kim, S.Y., and Skogan, W.G. 2003. Community Policing Working Paper 27: Statistical Analysis of Time Series Data on Problem Solving. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Informational Authority.

Kornhauser, R.R. 1978. Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytic Models. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kringen, J.A., Sedelmaier, C.M., and Dlugolenski, E. 2018. Foot patrol: The impact of continuity, outreach, and traditional policing activities. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 14:218–227.

Kubrin, C.E., and Weitzer, C. 2003. New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40(4):374–402.

Lindberg, M. 2015. False sense of security: Police make schools safer—right? Teaching Tolerance Spring: 22–25.

MacDonald, J.M. 2002. The effectiveness of community policing in reducing urban violence. Crime & Delinquency 48(4):592–618.

Maguire, E.R., Y. Sin, S. Zhao, and K.D. Hassell. 2003. Structural change in large police agencies during the 1990s. Policing: An International Journal 26(2):251–275.

May, D.C., Fessel, S.D., and Means, S. 2004. Predictors of principals’ perceptions of School Resource Officer effectiveness in Kentucky. American Journal of Criminal Justice 29:75–92.

McGarrell, E.F.; Freilich, J.D. and Chermak, S.M., 2007. Intelligence-led policing as a framework for responding to terrorism. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 23(2):142–158.

Miró–Llinares, F. 2014. Routine activity theory.  The Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1–7.

National Research Council. 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.

National Research Council. 2018. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.

Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services. 2012. Community-Oriented Policing Defined. Washington, DC: DOJ, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Paez, R.A., and Dierenfeldt, R. 2020. Community policing and youth offending: A comparison of large and small jurisdictions in the United States. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 25(1):140–153.

Pentek, C., and Eisenberg, M.E. 2018. School Resources Officers, safety, and discipline: Perceptions and experiences across racial/ethnic groups in Minnesota secondary schools. Children and Youth Services Review, 88:141–148.

Peyton, K., Sierra–Arévalo, M., and Rand, D.G. 2019a. A field experiment on community policing and police legitimacy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(40):19894–19898.

Piza, E.L., and O’Hara, B.A. 2012. Saturation foot-patrol in a high-violence area: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Justice Quarterly 31(4):693–718.

Rabois, D., and Haaga, D.A.F. 2002. Facilitating police–minority youth attitude change: The effects of cooperation within a competitive context and exposure to typical exemplars. Journal of Community Psychology 30(2):189–195.

Ratcliffe, J.H., Taniguchi, T., Groff, E.R., and Wood, J.D. 2011. The Philadelphia foot patrol experiment: A randomized controlled trial of police patrol effectiveness in violent crime hotspots. Criminology 49(3):795–831.

Reaves, B.A. 2015. Local Police Departments, 2013: Personnel, Policies, and Practices. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, Bureau of Justice Statistics.  

Reisig, M.D. 2010. Community and problem-oriented policing.  Crime and Justice 39(1):1–53.

Scott, M. 2000. Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 years . Washington, DC: DOJ, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Scrivner, E., and Stephens, D.W. 2015. Community Policing in the New Economy. Washington, DC: DOJ, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Shaw, C.R., and McKay, H. 1969 [1942]. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Sidebottom, A., and Tilley, N. 2010. Improving problem-oriented policing: The need for a new model? Crime Prevention and Community Safety .

Skogan, W.G. 1996. Evaluating Problem-Solving Policing: The Chicago Experience . Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research.

Skolnick, J.K., and Bayley, D.H. 1988. Theme and variation in community policing. In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research , edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Somerville, Paul. 2008. Understanding community policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 32(2):261–277.

Sorensen, L.C., Shen, Y., and Bushway, S.D. 2021. Making schools safer and/or escalating disciplinary response: A study of police officers in North Carolina schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 43(4):495–519.

Stern, A., and Petrosino, A. 2018. What Do We Know About the Effects of School-Based Law Enforcement on School Safety? San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

Theriot, M.T., and Orme, J.G. 2016. School Resource Officers and students’ feelings of safety at school. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 14(2):130–146.

Thomas, B., Towvim, L., Rosiak, J., and Anderson, K. 2013. School Resource Officers: Steps to Effective School-Based Law Enforcement. Arlington, VA: National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention.

Tillyer, M.S., and Eck, J.E. 2011. Getting a handle on crime: A further extension of routine activities theory.  Security Journal 24(2):179 – 193.

Wakefield, A. 2006. The Value of Foot Patrol: A Review of Research. London, England: Police Foundation.

Walker, S., and Katz, C.M. 2017. The Police in America: An Introduction, 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Wang, K., Kemp, J., and Burr, R. 2022. Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools in 2019–20: Findings From the School Survey on Crime and Safety . NCES 2022–029. Washington, DC: U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Weisburd, D.L., Telep, C.W., Hinkle, J.C., and Eck, J.E. 2010. Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Criminology & Public Policy 9(1):139–172.

Weisburd, D.L., Telep, C.W., Hinkle, J.C., and Eck, J.E. 2008. The effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder. In Campbell Systematic Reviews, edited by M.W. Lipsey, A. Bjørndal, D.B. Wilson, C. Nye, R. Schlosser, J. Littell, G. Macdonald, and K.T. Hammerstrøm. Oslo, Norway: Campbell Corporation.

Wilson, J.Q., and Kelling, G.L. 1982. Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly 29–38.

Young, A. 2022. Architecture as affective law enforcement: Theorising the Japanese koban. Crime, Media, Culture 18(2):183-202.

Zhang, J.S. 2019. The effects of a school policing program on crime, discipline, and disorder: A quasi-experimental evaluation. American Journal of Criminal Justice 44:45–62.

Zhao, J.S., He, N., and Lovrich, N.P. 2003. Community policing: Did it change the basic functions of policing in the 1990s? A national follow-up study. Justice Quarterly 20(4):697–724.

About this Literature Review

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. January  2023. “Community-Oriented Policing and Problem-Oriented Policing.” Literature review. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.  https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/community-oriented-problem-oriented-policing

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under Contract Number: 47QRAA20D002V.

Last Update: January 2023