Problem-Havers and Problem-Solvers

Consider this dilemma: your client knows what they want, you (“the expert consultant”) know what they need, but those two things don’t match. How to proceed?

Once you’ve split the problem-having and the problem-solving points of view, tradeoffs become trickier to navigate.

For one thing, there is an imbalance in information. Put simply, my client knows the benefits they are trying to achieve (at least, I hope so). But they don’t know the consequences and costs of the various possible solutions.

The position is reversed for the consultant. I generally know the interdependencies and trade-offs that come with any given solution. But I don’t necessarily know what all the business priorities and constraints are.

It’s a bit like a doctor who might recommend a particular treatment plan based on their training and point of view, or even what an average patient would prefer. But when there are many dimensions of outcomes (cost, health improvement, side effects), it would be hard to guess exactly the correct priorities for the patient. Most consultants will try to clarify by gathering input from the client, and then make a recommendation. That dialogue might look something like this:

Client: I want to maximize profit.

Consultant: Great, do you mean profit dollars or profit percent? What about total revenue? Investments in the future? Based on those answers I can give you a recommendation.

It’s tough enough to make a decision when you’re the only one involved (so you are playing both the role of problem-haver and problem-solver). Even having all the information in my head about what I want and what my options are, I’ve spent over a year mulling over if I want to get a van or not.

Now add in this layer of separation between the person who knows the effort a solution takes versus the person who knows what the benefits are. How could the problem solver possibly recommend the right choice?

These days I view my role more as an expert guide than an advisor. I place a lot more emphasis on joint exploration and discussion, helping my clients to explore their objectives and sharing my knowledge of the potential solutions as well as the risks and implications of each option.

I find that this approach helps correct the imbalance in information between the problem-haver (my client) and the problem-solver (me). It helps ensure that we identify together the best problem to solve and that we have an informed discussion about the costs and benefits of the potential solutions before we commit to a decision.

But this joint exploration also delivers two crucial additional benefits. It enables my clients to arrive at their own understanding about what they really need, versus what they want. And it helps them “own” the solution and commit to the path ahead that we have mapped out together.

I encourage each of you to think about times where the person who knows the pain of the problem is different from the one who knows the possible cures. If you’re the one in pain, you have to figure out how much you want to share those issues with the problem-solver. Alternatively, you can work on your own to understand the potential solutions and make your own decisions.

Either way, the problem-haver and the problem-solver must become partners.