“That won’t work … Yeah, that won’t work either. I tried it,” they say when we offer them solutions to their situations. “Why do you insist on helping me? Why can’t you just listen?”

“When one of my friends has a problem,” we say, “I try to help them.”

“Why do you always think you have to help?” they ask. “Is it because there’s some part of you that needs to be right?”

“If I needed to be right, why would I propose so many, different solutions? If I have an unusual need to be right, I would only pose one solution and insist that you try that. My motto is, if one thing doesn’t work try another. If I thought I was always right, why would I write as much as I do? I’m searching for answers and solutions, and when they work for me I suggest them to my friends to see if it might work for them.”

“Well, you can go ahead and shove your solutions up your nether regions,” they say, “because none of them work.”

“Fair enough,” we say. “What solutions have you found?”

“I’ve tried everything. I have,” they say. “Nothing works.”

It’s simplistic to say that for every problem there is a solution. It’s simplistic to say if one solution doesn’t work, try another? It’s also simplistic to say that some dilemmas are complex and some are very simple. There are only so many facts, and there are only so many solutions. When we argue over truths as they apply to solutions, we think that if all parties concerned dug deep enough, we might eventually arrive at an agreed upon truth.

One agreed upon truth we think we’ve found is that we all want to be happy. Happy, how do I get happy? Happy is a big problem that requires big solutions, and it’s probably something we’ll never achieve … until we start tending to our little things. We can be so distracted by our pursuit of big things that we accidentally allow the little things to accumulate and overwhelm us, which, of course, leads to frustration.    

These little problems might have solutions, but we mere mortals cannot resolve them, because we’re susceptible to the dumb guy/smart guy dynamic. If we cannot resolve a little thing immediately, or easily, we feel dumb, because we imagined that we would be able to solve such things by now, and we feel like dumb guys looking out on the smart guy world that is able to solve their problems. The most frustrating element of this dynamic is that we know some smart guys, and they’re not really that smart. They just have this ability to adapt to variables without the fear that others might consider them dumb for not being able to solve their problems.

What is that? How do they do that? I don’t know if we’re born with preconceived notions about who we are, or if we age into them under the umbrella of idyllic images. We don’t know anything about all that, but we thought we’d be much further along than we are now. We’re not able to figure things out as well as the smart guys who really aren’t that smart. So, what’s the difference? The difference is they approach problem-solving from an ego-less perspective. They’ve been fixing their problems for so long that they know that anytime they try to fix matters there will always be variables that make them feel dumb. They also know that fixing these problems is hard, and fraught with failure. When they fail, they have the same feelings of frustration, feelings of failure, and embarrassment as everyone else. Everyone wants their first solution to work, and everyone feels like an idiot when it doesn’t. The difference between them and us is the “what now” principle. 

What do we do when all of our accumulated knowledge and experience don’t help us fix a problem? First, we curse the manufacturers who created everything from the tools we use as useless to the various swear words we have for product itself, “They shouldn’t have made this so … hard!” When we’re done with that, we might direct our anger at ourselves, our loved ones, and any neighbors who happen to be watching us without offering any help. The next thing we try, following the tenants of the “what now” progressions is to try something else.  

It cannot be that easy, we think as we watch others solve their problems so easily, and they do so with an ego-less approach. That’s disgusting. And we think it is both, especially when their solutions lead to better health, wealth, happiness, and peace of mind. If they don’t like themselves the way they are, and we suspect they do with jealous rage, they appear to know themselves far better than we do, and the most sickening part of it is they want us to be as happy as they are. They want to share their mentality with us and help us shed our complexities. They don’t demand we use their solution, and they’re not hurt when we don’t. Their goal is to join our quest for a solution to that which plagues us, and their solution often involves doing it differently than the way we’ve been doing it.

The problem for the problematic is that they don’t appear as concerned with finding a solution that might work for them, even internally. Their goal, presumably, is to draw attention to the complexities, so they can garner sympathy and attention, and so we all acknowledge their problem for what it is. 

When we reach the nadir of this argument, we have two choices. We can either walk away or acknowledge the severity of their complaint, and offer sympathy. Neither choice solves our problem, of course, but it becomes obvious that we don’t want to solve our problems as much as we thought, and we only want others to acknowledge the severity of our problems as we lay it out. If we perform according to their wishes, our reward is their soothed smile. 

***

I saw that smile once in the otherwise uneventful silence of a hospital’s emergency room (ER). While counting what felt like hours for an ER attendant to tend to me, I overheard another ER attendant inform a teenager that she had a condition. I can’t remember the specifics of her condition, but I remember that it was not dramatic, life-altering, life-threatening, or severely debilitating. “This will require some effort on your part to maintain a modicum of good health,” The ER attendant informed her.

The teenage patient smiled a half-smile that she couldn’t hide, when she received the diagnosis. She turned that smile off quickly as the ER attendant listed off what she would have to attend to to maintain good health. She listened with her serious face on. She didn’t intend to smile, but it happened. She turned it off, because she knew how serious the moment was, but she couldn’t keep it off for long. She turned away from them when the smile rose again. She knew she wouldn’t be able to stop smiling, and she knew it wasn’t appropriate for the situation. 

Before I speculate on what I thought sparked that twinkle in her eye, let me write that it’s entirely possible that the ER attendant’s diagnosis soothed her because it was something, and those of us who have had our body fall apart in small, confusing ways can empathize because we know that something is far better than the fear of knowing nothing. 

Some of us can spend months living in the confusing scary world of knowing nothing before we break down and schedule a visit to our doctor’s office, or worse, the emergency room. We eventually reach a point where we know we need help figuring out what’s wrong with us. We listed our symptoms on various medical websites, trying to come to up with a diagnosis of our own, and we found a whole lot of nothing. Armed with a diagnosis, we, like this young woman, can find some solace, because it puts an end to the not knowing, and a proper diagnosis can lead to specified medicinal care and proactive measures we can employ to maintain some modicum of health that could lead to better health, more energy, and a longer life. A diagnosis and a prescription, or as in this case a prescriptive course of action, are solutions to our problem that can lead to a comforted smile.

The smile I saw on her face was something different however. I saw a little spark in her smile that suggested she couldn’t help but find this a little exciting. We can’t explain such a smile, but we know that this diagnosis will add some dramatic complications to our life. Most of us live simple, boring lives, because we inherited quality genes that provided us with a finely tuned and well honed machine that rarely breaks down. We appreciate the brilliance of the design of our body, on some level, but after living with good health for as many decades as we have, it can be … a little boring at times. When our body breaks down, in small, relatively harmless and painless ways, it can be interesting and even a little exciting for reasons that we know are kind of weird and tough to understand or explain. 

I do not know what was going on in her head, of course, but I imagine that she knew that this condition would not only require attention from her, but her family, her friends, her employer, her school, and everyone else who cared about her. She probably sat in that ER room thinking that she would become the center of attention among those who cared about her. Until they could devise a plan to help her manage her day-to-day activities, she would also be a subject of sympathy from those concerned about her health. She knew she could talk to them about it, and that smile suggested she looked forward to those conversations and all of that love and attention that followed. She knew she would be able to express her concerns, and she knew they would finally listen to her, because this was a big deal. They, along with her doctor, would help her devise a plan that would include a disciplined diet that she would have to follow, and she probably figured she could violate it when she was “feeling a little naughty”, and because she had a relatively mild case, the consequences of these violations would be minimal, but her friends and family would still be concerned when she did that.

She probably also thought about her obnoxious brother, boyfriend, and everyone else who thought they knew what was wrong with her. They probably offered her a guess, and she argued with them and told them that it was far more serious than that, but they wouldn’t listen. They also offered her simplistic home remedies that promised some quick-fix solutions to what ailed her. Her smile suggested that she couldn’t wait to tell them they were all wrong, all along, and her condition was far more complex than any of them dreamed. Armed with ER attendant’s diagnosis, she realized she could now tell them all to go to hell. “You have no idea what you’re talking about. This is a big deal. You have no idea what I’m going through here. I have a condition that requires constant care and treatment.” That smile told me that she couldn’t wait to drop these lines on her obnoxiously simplistic friends and family. And if they continued to argue with her, she could drop some delicious line, such as, “Oh, so, you’re telling me that you know more about this than a doctor?”

***

What is the antonym of solutions-oriented thinking? Is there one? Thesauruses list a number of antonyms for solution, but they have no listings for an antonym of solutions-oriented. These formal sites do not list a term like problems-oriented or problem-centric. Those terms do not exist in their view, because no one is problems-oriented, at least in the sense that they use problems to achieve some happiness. Less formal sites suggest that a problems-oriented person would rather stew over their problems rather “than activate critical-thinking skills to find solutions.” Having problems makes them feel more adult, responsible, and important, and any attempt we make to try to help them arrive at a solution only minimizes their problem in their eyes.

Solutions-oriented thinkers are no smarter, healthier, or in any way better than those who appear to relish talking about their problems. Solutions-oriented thinkers are often quick to recognize patterns and devise an immediate solution, but they, too, have to face the flaws in their pattern-recognition thinking. When those humbling experiences occur, they choose a more methodical approach that includes consulting others, manuals, or another more methodical approach, and they use that information to devise another solution.

“But I thought you just said your initial solution was the answer,” their agitators say. “I thought you knew-it-all.”

“I was wrong.”

Solutions-oriented thinkers are wrong as often as everyone else is, and as we listed above they’re not smarter than us. They might try to find a solution, and they might fail. This leads their agitators to another smile, the inevitable, “See” smile, followed by, “See, you’re not so smart.” 

When I was teaching a bunch of young-uns how to shoot a basketball, I displayed the proper technique. I missed the shot when I was showing it to them them. “Why would I take advice from you?” they asked. “You missed the shot.”

“Just because I missed that particular shot doesn’t mean it isn’t the correct way to shoot the ball. If you use proper technique, your probability of making a shot increases.”

The problems-centric person does not want to listen, and for a wide variety of reasons they prefer to keep shooting the ball the way they’ve always shot it. When their shot never improves, they say, “I just suck at basketball, and the sooner I come to grips with that fact, the happier I’ll be.” The player who wants to get better might not want to take advice from a person “Who missed the shot,” but their best bet will be to try a method other than the one they have, because they will rarely make the shot the way they’re currently shooting it.     

The solutions-oriented thinker might be surprised, confused, and frustrated when their proposed solutions don’t work, and problems-oriented people might enjoy that initial failure, but the solutions-oriented person does something that shocks the problems-oriented person, they try something else. True problem solvers find arriving at a solution an ego-less approach. The recipients of their ideas often believe it is anything but.  

Some solutions-oriented thinkers in solutions-oriented positions, in a Fortune 500 company, decided to put their money where their mouth is by doing away with the traditional interview process. Through trial and error, they’ve decided to do away with the closed boardroom, “hot-seat”,  interview that challenges the potential candidate to solve a hypothetical problem. “This is the problem. Quick, what is your solution?” These Fortune 5oo companies found that this line of questioning doesn’t separate the quality, ideal candidate from the less than. These innovative companies decided to send their questions to their potential candidates’ homes, via email, before the interview, to allow them to process the question, trial and error it, and arrive at what they consider the best possible answer. The Fortune 500 companies now recognize that quick thinking candidates look and sound great in the traditional interview, but that that does nothing for their long-term. The “hot-seat” scenario questions will find the person who “thinks quick on their feet”, and it shows the candidate’s problem-solving hard-wiring. By sending the questions home, however, the companies are now suggesting that their ideal candidate does not have to think quick, and that methodical thinkers often come up with better, more creative, and sometimes more innovative solutions than those who come up with quick, bullet point solutions. The methodical thinkers are trial-and-error processors who diagnose a problem, come up with a solution, recognize the errors of their subjectivity, pose other solutions, recognize the errors of their impulsive, patterned thinking, and arrive at a final solution that the “hot-seat” thinker who “thinks quick on their feet” probably wouldn’t even consider. The take-home method might also allow the potential candidate to forecast variables and diagnose and treat them accordingly. 

The quick-on-their-feet candidate always looks and sounds better behind closed doors. They display confidence, experience, intelligence, charisma, and a number of other intangible qualities we admire in those we meet, but how many quick-thinking, well-spoken, and confident candidates turn out to be the best employees over the long haul? How many of these ideal candidates only display their ideal qualities in the interview? How many of them outperform their peers in the training room, answering every question the trainer asks. We call them hotshots, and hotshots know how to make excellent first impressions. They know how to dress for success, they memorize the answers headhunters want to hear, and they do it all with an award-winning grin. Yet, depending on the industry we’re in, we often find that these types often shine bright and burn out quickly.

Most of the best employees we work with are quiet, unassuming types who offer unique, creative, and innovative approaches to problem solving. They may not be the best employees in the training room, as they may not be the type to raise their hand to answer the trainer’s questions, and they may not be the best employee after the first two weeks. It might take them a little time to figure out the finer points of the machinations of their company, and it might take them a little more time to figure out their role in it. They aren’t the type to dazzle their employer in the early stages in the manner the ideal “hot-seat” quick thinker can, and this frustrates them because everyone wants to make a great first impression. This has haunted them since high school when the “hot-seat” quick thinkers dazzled their teachers. The methodical, slow processors often tried to keep up with them in the beginning, because that’s just what they did in high school. We often had the wrong answer in class, and we were ridiculed for it by our peers, and at times our teachers. We learned to avoid sticking our neck out. Candidates who could absorb such ridicule, and endure the lack of faith they received from teachers and bosses for initially being wrong developed the ability to simply try something else. These candidates, Fortune 500 companies are now saying, are such a rare commodity that they’re willing to upend the traditional interview process to find them. They know such thinkers do not perform well in the standardized, traditional interview format, so they tried another one to find that special candidate who tried something else when their initial, impulsive thoughts didn’t work. The Fortune 500 company doesn’t want people who are always wrong of course, but even the best candidates are going to be wrong once in a while, and some of the times those errors will be humiliating. When that happens, they’re forced to endure the “what now” questions, but due to their mode of thinking, they’re more accustomed to the what-now questions than the “hot-seat” quick thinking dazzlers. What do we do when all else fails? Decades of trial and error evidence have shown Fortune 500 companies that their ideal candidate is an ego-less thinker who already knows what it feels like to be wrong, and they know what to do about it. By changing the traditional “hot-seat” interview format, these companies were trying something else to try to find those who try something else.