army decision making and problem solving

Thesoldiersproject is supported by its audience. When you buy through our links, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

All About the 7-Step Military Problem Solving Process

Written by Everett Bledsoe / Fact checked by Brain Bartell

In addition to power and strength, the military relies on quick and decisive thinking. Members in service must be able to think on their feet and craft solutions in the blink of an eye. Obviously, this is not easy to do. But it is not too far-fetched when you realize that countless lives depend on a single personnel’s decision and course of action.

As such, every recruit coming into the military is taught and trained about the 7-step military problem solving process. This systematic approach is believed to be the best way for military members to address any problems that they encounter.

In short, the 7 steps to solve problems are:

• Pinpoint the Problem
• Identify the Facts and Assumptions
• Craft Alternatives
• Analyze the Generated Alternatives
• Weigh Between the Generated Alternatives
• Make and Carry Out Your Final Decision
• Evaluate the Results From Your Decision

To make it easier for you to comprehend and follow along, we have elaborated on each of the above steps in this article. So, continue reading by scrolling down!

Table of Contents

Step 1: Pinpoint the Problem

Step 2: identify the facts and assumptions, step 3: craft alternatives, step 4: analyze the generated alternatives, step 5: weigh between the generated alternatives, step 6: make and carry out your final decision, step 7: evaluate the results from your decision, army problem solving & decision making process, seven step military problem solving process.

The first step is to ID the problem, which means recognizing and identifying what needs fixing. Needless to say, you cannot attempt to seek a solution without first knowing what has to be addressed. By pinpointing your problem, you will have a clear goal or end destination in mind. Only then can you come up with the right steps to take.

To effectively define the problem, ask yourself the 5Ws—who, what, where, and when. In detail:

• Who is affected? Who is involved?
• What is affected? What is in the overall picture?
• When is/did this happen?
• Where is/did this happen?

Always be crystal clear about the problem and try to view it in the most objective way as much as possible. Imagine you are the third person looking at It rather than from it. It also helps to organize your answers into a coherent and concise problem statement.

The next step is to ID the facts and assumptions. This entails that you get whatever additional information you can in the time that you have. Try to garner more facts than assumptions by reviewing all the possible factors, internal and external, and use them together with what you have thought out in the step above to determine the cause of the problem. You should also be aware of the nature and scope of the problem from this step.

From here, you take a sub-step: think about what you want the final result to be. This does not have to be complicated but it has to be very clear. For instance, one of your troop members may be lost and uncontactable. Your ultimate goal is to find him/her and return to your base together. Remember, having a wishy-washy end state will only make your problem solving process more difficult.

These first two steps constitute situation assessment, which serves as the basis for you to work towards the remaining steps of the military problem solving process.

Onto the third step, strive to develop as many potential solutions as possible. Here, you will have to exercise your imagining and visualizing skills. Brainstorm and refine any ideas simultaneously. Engage both critical and critical thinking in this step. If possible, take note of what you have come up with. Do not be hesitant and brush off any ideas.

Then, analyze your options. Consider all of your possible courses of action with all the available information that you have compiled in the previous steps. Take into account your experiences, intuitions, and emotions. This does not have to be a purely rational or mathematical procedure. Nevertheless, this does not mean that you are 100% guided by your instincts and emotions. You must have a good balance between the two.

This step naturally lends itself to the next: compare between your generated alternatives. Weigh between their respective pros and cons. In particular, look at their cost and benefit of success. Are there any limiting factors or potential for unintended consequences? Evaluate carefully and ask yourself a lot of questions. You can also consider using a table, T-chart, or matrix to compare visually.

Try to settle for the “best” solution or course of action that is both logical and feels “right”. Apart from picking the best, select two or three more workable solutions as backups. Keep them handy in case you need to refer back to them. During this process, you may merge ideas and mix-match bits and pieces—that’s perfectly fine!

Once you have made your decision, craft your action plans. Know the details—what exactly do you have to do to solve the problem? If it is a long-term problem that you have to address, set milestones and timelines with clear methods of measuring progress and success. On the other hand, if it is a short, instantaneous problem, communicate your plans clearly to anyone else involved. Be aware of the specifics and be brutally honest. Execute your course of action with care. But do not be rigid. If something happens out of the plan, be willing to adjust and adapt.

After your solution implementation, wrap up by assessing the results. Was it what you envisioned? Were there deviations? What did you take away? Answer all of the questions so you can be even more equipped for future endeavors. Think of it as a reflection stage. The 7 steps to problem solving in the military are a continuous process—you will be confronted with challenges over and over, so do not skip this strengthening step. It will further your skills and expertise to handle problems going forward.

Another set of seven steps that you may come across during your service is the army problem solving steps. Needless to say, this is applied to the army problem solving process.

• Receiving the Mission
• Analyzing the Mission
• Developing the Course of Action
• Analyzing the Course of Action
• Comparing the Course of Action
• Getting Approval for the Course of Action
• Producing, Disseminating, and Transitioning Orders

This is a part of the MDMP, short for the military decision making process. In each step, there are inputs and outputs. In general, it is more specific than the above set of steps.

These seven steps focus on collaborative planning and performance. Plus, set the stage for interactions between different military agents, including commanders, staff, headquarters, etc.

COA is an abbreviation for a course of action. Thus, these steps are relatively similar to the steps that we have gone through earlier; specifically steps two: mission analysis, three: COA development, four: COA analysis, and five: COA comparison. Like the previous seven steps, these are carried out sequentially but can be revisited when needed.

The main difference is that these 7 steps to problem solving in the army are more explicitly directed to junior personnel. Hence, the mentioning of orders from higher-ranks, the significant role of commanders, and the need to earn approval before execution.

A mnemonic that service members use to remember this process is M.A.D.A.C.A.P. for:

• A: Analysis

You might want to remember this for an exam at military school, at NCO, or soldier of the month board.

You can learn more about the MDMP here:

So, there you have it—the 7-step military problem solving process. You should now be aware of two different but equally important sets of steps to problem solving and decision making. If you have any follow-up questions or thoughts, let us know in the comments. We look forward to hearing from you!

I am Everett Bledsoe, taking on the responsibility of content producer for The Soldiers Project. My purpose in this project is to give honest reviews on the gear utilized and tested over time. Of course, you cannot go wrong when checking out our package of information and guide, too, as they come from reliable sources and years of experience.

ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY

Voice for the army - support for the soldier, ‘thinking about thinking’: soldiers have a better way to solve problems.

A new field of systems thinking has emerged with the potential to transform the U.S. Army and its professional military education system. This new field could create emergent and adaptive leaders by placing a high value on creative and critical thinkers. It offers a new way to view problems and build intuitive thinking. Essentially, it could be the next frontier for the Army to create a superior cognitive force or, more specifically, a metacognitive force.

This new approach is called Systems Thinking v2.0, and it has the potential to fundamentally change and improve how leaders can think through, identify and solve problems in the Army. It is a new approach to problem-solving and concept mapping that can help build a new metacognitive warfighter.

Systems Thinking v2.0 is predicated on new discoveries and ideas:

• Systems thinking is the emergent property of four simple rules known as DSRP, an acronym for distinctions, systems, relationships and perspectives. That is, systems thinking itself is not a linear method or framework but an emergent property of the four simple rules from which systems thinking emerges. This is predicated on the idea that systems thinking is a complex adaptive system with underlying rules.
• There are many systems thinking and design frameworks (System Dynamics, Soft Systems Methodology, Systems Engineering, Army Design Methodology, etc.) and still other nonsystems thinking frameworks (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats [SWOT]; Observe, Orient, Decide and Act [OODA]; etc.) but these frameworks are built on the common set of simple rules of DSRP.
• The four rules of DSRP are a simple cognitive algorithm not only for how humans think and can think more systemically about any system but also for how we understand existing knowledge and create new knowledge.

As a field, systems thinking attempts to understand how to think better about real-world systems and real-world problems. For the past 100 years, but especially since the 1950s, the field of systems thinking has amassed specialized methods and frameworks to better understand the real world, what systems theorists call Systems Thinking v1.0. Systems Thinking v2.0 instead supplies universal rules that can be used to more closely align human mental models with the real world (i.e., the process of metacognition).

Supporting Military Work

People across the military use Systems Thinking v2.0 to support their work. Systems Thinking v2.0 is taught at West Point within the systems engineering program to prepare future warfighters with necessary metacognitive skills. It also has been used to problem-solve during recent Army missions, and it should be examined as a way to transform professional military education across the Army.

Cornell University, N.Y., professors Derek and Laura Cabrera are the brains behind the Systems Thinking v2.0 model. They’ve also launched Plectica, a visual systems mapping software based on this approach. This free software (available at www.Plectica.com) allows you to do systems thinking and visualize, analyze and synthesize concepts to gain a greater understanding of ideas or concepts in their entirety.

Derek Cabrera, who teaches systems thinking, modeling and leadership at Cornell and is on the board of advisers for the Department of Systems Engineering at West Point, explained in an interview:

“The more we learn about systems thinking and how it works, the more it is clear that it dovetails with the field of metacognition. There is a growing research base in the interdisciplinary field of metacognition that demonstrates the far-ranging effects of increasing metacognition. … Metacognition sits at the crossroads of cognitive science, learning science, neuroscience, psychology, sociology and epistemology [the theory of knowledge]. Metacognition—meta equals self-referential plus cognition equals thinking—can be thought of as ‘thinking about thinking,’ or keeping a watchful eye on how one’s thinking affects how we feel, think further, and behave in the world. When we become aware of the simple underlying rules we use to think—DSRP—we are better able to use these patterned rules to think more systemically about any domain or problem.”

The world is increasingly more complex and uncertain than ever. Cabrera possesses a deep understanding of complexity and discovered four underlying patterns of metacognition universal to systemic thinking: making distinctions, organizing part/whole systems, recognizing relationships and taking perspectives—DSRP. These patterns of thought have successfully brought the field of systems thinking together and offer the building blocks of metacognition; hence, version 2.0. He has demonstrated that systemic thinking and metacognition are not only similar in their underlying structure and dynamics, but also their purpose. He said:

“Both physically and conceptually, we split whole things down into parts or alternatively lump things together to form a new whole. We sometimes say there are just two kinds of scientists, splitters and lumpers. Those who split stuff up and those who lump stuff together. In this new … volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world, we need folks who can do both. We need a new kind of amphibious mind I call a splumper .”

A Better HQ

An element of a NATO-led mission in Afghanistan demonstrates Systems Thinking v2.0 at work. This element involved moving Resolute Support headquarters to a more resilient structure fit to handle emerging strategic requirements—force manning, Mission Command and flexibility for future missions. While the Napoleonic organizational model that reorganized the military corps remains relevant, Gen. John W. Nicholson, then-commander of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan and the Resolute Support mission, realized that the Resolute Support headquarters no longer fit the purpose of sustained multinational stability operations. He wanted to adapt the headquarters to be able to address emerging localized strategic requirements.

Resolute Support was launched after NATO’s International Security Assistance Force ended in 2014. Its mission is to focus on training, advising and assisting at the security-related ministries in Afghanistan’s institutions, and among the senior ranks of the Afghan army and police. 

After a recent shift in U.S. South Asia policy, as well as an enduring commitment from NATO and its partnering nations, changes have been made to the force manning-level constraints of Resolute Support headquarters. Under Nicholson’s guidance, these changes afforded Resolute Support headquarters an opportunity to reorganize staff and subordinate commands into a three-pillar functional headquarters that delivers capability to the operational, institutional and strategic areas. The new structure emphasizes perspectives of force generation and functional allocation (work processes and battle rhythm) and codifies these changes by amending existing organizational documentation.

To support the reorganization effort, Systems Thinking v2.0 was used to perform a functional and requirements analysis, and to identify potential measures of effectiveness for the final headquarters structure. Without Systems Thinking v2.0 and Plectica software to map out the current system, it would have been difficult to isolate the systems, relationships and perspectives requiring attention. The DSRP approach to systems thinking helped create a shared understanding that transcended personalities within the greater Resolute Support headquarters as documents were amended and people communicated through mission orders.

Anyone with military experience understands that reorganizing is nothing new; however, Resolute Support did something innovative. Executing such a reorganization is a monumental task and Resolute Support headquarters is expected to maintain a level of workflow that supports train-advise-assist down to the multiple commands, and to continue to plan, assess and coordinate with superior headquarters. This simultaneous effort can sometimes create opportunities to leverage the capacity of other organizations such as the U.S. Military Academy or the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, or any of the intellectual capital throughout the military. These consulting opportunities afford a fresh perspective, can be unbiased and allow for operations to be minimally disrupted.

Improving PME

Using and understanding Systems Thinking v2.0 would also allow professional military education to adapt quickly to the changing environment. In essence, it would provide a complex adaptive curriculum allowing us to see learning for what it is: the process of making sense of information and connecting knowledge, leading to a better understanding of our environment. It offers simple rules—DSRP—that could bring about emergent learning.

Systems Thinking v2.0 would move the U.S. military past simple drill and rote memorization and allow it to learn by forming connections between ideas. It would allow the military to analyze and synthesize concepts bringing about emergent learning. In physics, the mass of an object does not equal the mass of all its parts as it also requires energy to bind it together. Here we can think of energy as intelligent thinking.

For example, if we break apart the principles of Mission Command, we cannot gain an understanding by simply putting the pieces back together. We must insert “thinking,” which is essentially the binding energy allowing us to truly understand a concept. By using DSRP, we can insert “thinking” into the equation. The sum of its parts does not provide an understanding of Mission Command, but the sum of its parts plus DSRP does.

The Army is a superior fighting force. However, to remain superior, it must evolve and adapt. It must create a superior cognitive and metacognitive force. To do this, the service must build knowledge in order to possess it. Systems Thinking v2.0 helps do this by structuring, organizing and making meaning out of information. By thinking metacognitively (thinking about thinking) and visually mapping our thinking, Systems Thinking v2.0 in concert with proven Army methods—Army design methodology, the Military Decision Making Process and Mission Command—will yield far greater results that are more holistic, traceable and implementable. In the case of Resolute Support, Systems Thinking v2.0 helped elucidate the structure of the complex Resolute Support headquarters system and enabled innovation and a shared understanding. 

Systems Thinking v2.0 provides the Army warfighter a better way to identify and solve any problem. Systems Thinking v2.0 allows warfighters to transform information into meaning by adding deliberate thinking (information plus thinking equals knowledge) into the existing processes. Army warfighters who think about their thinking are better prepared to solve any problem that comes their way.

Essentially, Systems Thinking v2.0 plus U.S. Army equals metacognitive force.

• Mission Command

The 7 Steps in Problem Solving

The MDMP (Military Decision Making Process) and TLPs (Troop Leading Procedures) are both based on the Army Problem Solving Process , which is described in FM 22-100.  In this article, we will explore the sequence of steps that will help any leader work through a problem.  Here are the 7 Steps in Problem Solving.

#1. ID the Problem: This involves recognizing what the root problem really is and defining that problem precisely.  It is often easy to be distracted by the symptoms of a problem but it is essential to determine the root cause.  You can define the problem by asking yourself these questions:

• Who is affected?
• What is affected?
• When did it occur?
• Where is the problem?
• Why did it occur?

Also, consider the end state that you want.  How will things look when everything is done?

#2. ID Facts and Assumptions: Get whatever facts you can in the time you have.  Remember, facts are what you know about the situation.  Some good resources for facts are ARs, policies, and doctrine.  Assumptions are what you believe about the situation but do not have facts to support.  As a general rule, try to assume as little as possible.  Analyze the facts and assumptions you ID to determine the scope of the problem.

#3. Generate Alternatives: This is where you develop the ways to solve the problem.  Always try to develop more than one approach.  You can’t possibly ID the best solution without considering more than one alternative and these alternatives should have significant differences.  Sometimes, if time permits, include input from your peers and subordinates.  This brainstorming promotes a faster free flow of ideas and generally can avoid rejecting promising alternatives.

#4. Analyze the Alternatives:  Obvious, right?  However, many fail to ID the intended and unintended consequences, resources and other limitations and each alternative’s advantages and disadvantages.  Be sure to consider all your alternatives according to your screening and evaluation criteria (i.e. factors that a solution must have for you to consider it a feasible option).  If a COA fails to meet your screening criteria, reject it, regardless of its other advantages.

#5. Compare Alternatives: Evaluate each alternative’s cost and benefit of success.  Think past the immediate future.  How will this decision change things tomorrow?  Next week? Next year?  Compare your alternatives simultaneously if you can.  Try utilizing a table or matrix that will lay out each COA and how each compares to the evaluation criteria.

#6. Make and Execute Your Decision: To help you make a decision, it may be helpful to assign a numerical value to your criteria as a way of ranking them.  For most decisions, a quick review of the weighted criteria will be enough to reveal the best solution.  Make your decision, prepare a plan of action and put it into motion!

#7. Assess the Results: It isn’t over just because you made a decision.  After all, we all make mistakes.  You will need to monitor the execution of your plan and be prepared to change it as necessary.  This step can be made easier by establishing critical steps or milestones that must take place on time in order to guarantee success.  Follow up on results and make further adjustments as needed.

FINAL THOUGHTS: Think of a decision you have made recently.  Did you follow all these steps?  Would your decision have been different if you had?

Leave your comments below. If you have any questions, you can ask those here too.

Suggested Resources:

• Drop the Belly Fat Today! Decrease cravings. Lose weight and feel great. Learn how .
• The # 1 Health Product you need, but haven't heard of before! Get the info .
• The # 1 Side Hustle for 2024 & Beyond! Daily Pay. Take the free tour .

4 thoughts on “The 7 Steps in Problem Solving”

The 7 steps to solve problems are: pinpoint the problem, identify the eacts and assumptions, craft alternatives, analyze the generated alternatives, weigh between the generated alternatives, make and carry out your final decision, evaluate the results from your decision.

When problems arise it’s easy to panic and throw caution to the wind. An organized list like this can help you analyze the situation and make the best possible decisions. Keeping a rational mind is important and thinking of all the possible outcomes will help identify the risk vs. reward ratio.

This process makes solving problems so much simpler. I use the 7 Steps in Problem Solving in my business and civilian life too. It works great.

Thanks for the post.

This is a good summary about the problem solving process. One of the major issues I have observed with regard to leaders involved in the problem solving process is that leaders fail to understand or analyze the unintended consequences of their actions. Our military is currently experiencing a major downsizing. As a result Soldiers are being separated from service for issues that previously would have been seen as an honest mistake or as a learning experience for an immature Soldier. In paragraph one you state:

“How will things look when everything is done?” When Leaders ask themselves this question they must also understand that their actions or recommendations could result in the issue being removed from their level of responsibility. Let’s say a Soldier is consistently late to formation. In the past the leader may have recommended an Article 15 to get the Soldier’s attention. Previously a Soldier could survive an Article 15 and go on to have a successful and productive career.

Recommending an Article 15 in today’s environment is almost a guarantee the Soldier will be separated from service. Therefore it is incredibly important the leader understand the unintended consequences of their decisions. When they ask themselves “How will things look when everything is done?” If that visions includes the Soldier being retained in service they must seek other alternatives to correcting substandard performance such as: verbal counseling, written counseling, corrective training, revocation of privileges, local letters of reprimand, etc.

Fully understanding the consequences of your decisions and how they impact your subordinates ensures you are making a decision that is in the best interest of the Soldier and the Army. For more information on revocation of privileges read The Mentor- Everything you need to know about leadership and counseling. It is available at your local military clothing and sales store or online at GIpubs.com

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Privacy Overview

• Recent Articles
• Journal Authors
• El Centro Main
• El Centro Reading List
• El Centro Links
• El Centro Fellows
• About El Centro
• Publish Your Work
• Editorial Policy
• Mission, Etc.
• Rights & Permissions
• Contact Info
• Support SWJ
• Join The Team
• Mad Science
• Front Page News
• Recent News Roundup
• News by Category
• Urban Operations Posts
• Recent Urban Operations Posts
• Urban Operations by Category
• Tribal Engagement
• For Advertisers

Using the Army Design Methodology Process to Frame Problems

By Dimas A. Fonseca Jr.

            Leaders serving in the highest echelons of the United States Army solve complex problems consistently. The Army design methodology (ADM) process enables commanders and staff members to frame an operational environment (OE), recognize problems, and create solutions. The ADM process also promotes continuous assessment of the OE and reframes problems and solutions, ensuring leaders think critically and creatively. Through the ADM process, commanders and staff members can understand, visualize, and describe operations (Department of the Army, 2015). To solve ill-structured problems, Army leaders use ADM. To properly facilitate framing a problem in organizations, leaders must understand the problem framing activity, key ADM concepts, and tools and techniques.

Framing Problems and Framing Activities  

            Ill-structured problems require the use of ADM, and framing the problem is an activity within the ADM process, which involves a unique set of activities of its own. Framing the problem identifies obstacles impeding progress toward the commander’s desired end state. Framing activities help leaders frame a problem including reviewing the environmental frame, identifying problems and mapping out their relationships, and using a narrative and graphics to capture the problem frame (Department of the Army, 2015). The purpose of problem framing is to determine which obstacles are impeding the end state. The environmental frame encompasses the current and future state of the OE. Soldiers attending the Sergeants Major Academy (SGM-A) use practical exercises in a small group setting to help develop graphics and narratives depicting framing a problem to prepare for future positions as senior enlisted advisors. In addition to practical exercises, Soldiers attending the SGM-A receive instructions on ADM concepts such as operational art and systems thinking to help reinforce framing problems and framing activities.  

Key Concepts

The ADM process is a practical planning and problem-solving methodology because the process integrates key concepts within the ADM framework. The key concepts associated with ADM are operational art, critical and creative thinking, collaboration and dialogue, systems thinking, framing, visual modeling, and narrative construction (Department of the Army, 2015). The key concepts within ADM assist commanders with their activities, such as understanding, visualizing, and describing an OE. Operational art and systems thinking are two ADM concepts that facilitate framing an OE. Ill-structured problems are challenging, making systems thinking and operational art essential to understanding the obstacles hindering the commander’s desired end state.

Operational Art

Within the ADM process, commanders and staff members apply the use of operational art to all significant activities, including framing problems. Operational art is the cognitive approach to developing strategies, campaigns, and operations which defines the purpose of military force at all levels of war (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2022). Operational art also has elements that support the concept, such as identifying centers of gravity, establishing decisive points, and creating lines of operation and effort. Under contingency operations, leaders can leverage operational art to determine the required military force to provide security along a main supply route. However, the ADM concept of operational art has a more considerable impact on the use of military force when combined with the concept of systems thinking.

Systems Thinking

To be successful in all levels of war, leaders must understand the various parts of systems and how each part is related. As a concept of ADM, “systems thinking is a process of understanding how parts of a system work and influence each other as part of a greater whole” (Department of the Army, 2015, p. 1-7). The OE is a complex system that leaders must frame to facilitate a commander’s activities. Using the example of providing security to a main supply route, leaders will use systems thinking to employ the command and control warfighting function to organize the different elements of combat power. The use of systems thinking enables leaders to integrate the elements of operational art and exercise the critical and creative thinking needed to identify obstacles under the framing the problem activity. In addition to using ADM concepts, leaders also have a unique set of tools and techniques to help frame the problem.

Tools and Techniques

Every ADM activity has tools and techniques needed to frame an OE. The tools and techniques that help frame problems include brainstorming, mind mapping, meta-questioning, questioning assumptions, and four ways of seeing (Department of the Army, 2015). Commanders and staff members cannot frame a problem if a problem statement is too vague, narrow in definition, or contains presumed solutions. To avoid poorly framing a problem, a practical approach would include an open discussion by a commander and their staff using the problem framing tools and techniques. Questioning assumptions and brainstorming effectively identifies obstacles and frames the problem.

Framing Problems through Brainstorming

To help frame the problem, leaders restate a problem by brainstorming obstacles. According to the Department of the Army (2015), “brainstorming helps the team develop ideas and variables for further research and analysis” (p. 3-6). To properly frame the problem, leaders must identify obstacles, and brainstorming is a technique that facilitates the ADM framework. A common way for leaders to brainstorm obstacles is by writing ideas on a board. Brainstorming in an organization’s public area, such as a multi-purpose room, will promote a shared understanding amongst the staff framing the problem. Also, brainstorming compliments systems thinking by connecting obstacles to each other. During practical exercises at the SGM-A, students use classroom resources to brainstorm obstacles impeding their instructor’s guidance. Framing the problem allows for brainstorming ideas against questioning assumptions.

Framing Problems by Questioning Assumptions

The Army operates on assumptions that leaders believe to be true and related to the OE. However, leaders must question assumptions as a risk-mitigating measure to help avoid poorly stating a problem. If the planning team does not validate assumptions when framing the problem, false assumptions will eventually become a risk to the operation (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2020). Returning to the example of protecting a supply route, questioning the assumption that an enemy force will attack the supply route will help the planning team determine the military force required for the security mission. Staff members on the planning team that questioned assumed obstacles would lead to properly framing the problem. During a brainstorming session, questioning assumptions by the planning team further integrates ADM tools and techniques. As Soldiers assigned to the SGM-A learned during practical exercises, understanding framing the problem within the ADM process will lead to appropriate facilitation in organizations.

Facilitating Framing Problems in Organizations

Leaders that understand framing the problem within the ADM process have an inherent responsibility to facilitate the activity in organizations. A key influencer within the Army is the Sergeant Major (SGM), who serves as the senior enlisted advisor to the commander and staff sections within an organization. According to the Department of the Army (2020), “the SGM is key in the training and operations planning process, leveraging their experience and vast technical and tactical knowledge to advise the staff” (p. 2-5). With so much influence and knowledge, SGMs can facilitate framing the problem in organizations. Operations SGMs and Financial Management SGMs have the platform to facilitate the ADM process in organizations.

Operations Sergeant Major

Serving as an organization’s Operations SGM requires expert knowledge of the ADM framework to ensure the assigned staff understands what framing a problem involves. SGMs in operations are responsible for advising commanders, providing leadership to the staff, overseeing training management, and communicating effectively (Department of the Army, 2020). One way to facilitate framing problems in organizations is by walking the staff through brainstorming activities in preparation for a field training exercise (FTX). An FTX will validate the organization’s ability to extend the commander’s operational reach. Leading the staff through brainstorming activities will train them to identify obstacles to frame the problems associated with the FTX. Doing the firsthand drill for a real-world training exercise will cement the ADM concepts, and tools and techniques for framing the problem. SGMs can reference ADM blocks of instructions taught at the SGM-A to help facilitate framing problems in organizations. Like the Operations SGM, a Financial Management SGM is also in a critical position to facilitate framing problems in an organization.

Financial Management Sergeant Major

As the senior enlisted advisor within a financial management organization, the Financial Management SGM is responsible for coordinating and providing fiscal assets to commanders. A significant part of financial management operations revolves around managing budgetary resources within the OE, often involving data analytics (Department of the Army, 2014). A Financial Management SGM can facilitate framing the problem in an organization using regression models and predictive analysis when reviewing data. The data charts would serve as good visual modeling products and help the SGM formulate a narrative supporting the ADM process. Through data analysis, the Financial Management SGM can help train the staff on framing the problem using data analysis to identify obstacles. Using data analytics as a financial management example, visualizing the spending rate of an organization’s status of funds will determine if the commander’s end state is trending correctly. Framing the problem using ADM concepts, and tools and techniques is challenging, but the SGM is the right person to facilitate the ADM activity within an organization.

Following the activities within the ADM process allows commanders and staff members the ability to frame an OE properly. To facilitate framing a problem in organizations, leaders must understand what framing the problem entails as an activity, including understanding key ADM concepts, and tools and techniques. Using the ADM concepts of operational art and systems thinking assists leaders with framing ill-structured problems. Brainstorming and questioning assumptions as a staff are critical problem framing tools and techniques needed to identify obstacles impeding the desired end state. Operations and Financial Management SGMs can facilitate framing the problem in organizations by brainstorming obstacles in preparation for an FTX and using data analytics to create and narrate visual models. Commanders cannot understand the OE without framing problems, making the ADM step an integral part of the ADM framework.

Department of the Army. (2014). Financial management operations (FM 1-06). https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/fm1_06.pdf

Department of the Army. (2015). Army design methodology (ATP 5-0.1). https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/atp5_0x1.pdf

Department of the Army. (2020). The noncommissioned officer guide (TC 7-22.7). https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN20340_TC%207-22x7%20FINAL%20WEB.pdf

Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2020). Joint planning (JP 5-0). https://jdeis.js.mil/jdeis/new_pubs/jp5_0.pdf

Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2022). Joint campaigns and operations (JP 3-0). https://jdeis.js.mil/jdeis/new_pubs/jp3_0.pdf

About the Author(s)

Master Sergeant (MSG) Dimas A. Fonseca Jr. is an active duty Soldier, serving in the United States Army since July 3rd, 2001. He is originally from La Habra, California and has a Master's degree in Organizational Leadership from Columbia Southern University. Since enlisting, he's had the honor of serving all over the world, to include two deployments to Afghanistan.  His awards and decorations include the Bronze Star Medal and Meritorious Service Medal to name a few. MSG Fonseca is currently attending the Sergeants Major Academy at Fort Bliss, Texas as a student of Class 73. He is married to Victoria Fonseca, and they have four children, one son-in-law, and two grandchildren. 

If we’re all so busy, why isn’t anything getting done?

Have you ever asked why it’s so difficult to get things done in business today—despite seemingly endless meetings and emails? Why it takes so long to make decisions—and even then not necessarily the right ones? You’re not the first to think there must be a better way. Many organizations address these problems by redesigning boxes and lines: who does what and who reports to whom. This exercise tends to focus almost obsessively on vertical command relationships and rarely solves for what, in our experience, is the underlying disease: the poor design and execution of collaborative interactions.

About the authors

This article is a collaborative effort by Aaron De Smet , Caitlin Hewes, Mengwei Luo, J.R. Maxwell , and Patrick Simon , representing views from McKinsey’s People & Organizational Performance Practice.

In our efforts to connect across our organizations, we’re drowning in real-time virtual interaction technology, from Zoom to Slack to Teams, plus group texting, WeChat, WhatsApp, and everything in between. There’s seemingly no excuse to not collaborate. The problem? Interacting is easier than ever, but true, productive, value-creating collaboration is not. And what’s more, where engagement is occurring, its quality is deteriorating. This wastes valuable resources, because every minute spent on a low-value interaction eats into time that could be used for important, creative, and powerful activities.

It’s no wonder a recent McKinsey survey  found 80 percent of executives were considering or already implementing changes in meeting structure and cadence in response to the evolution in how people work due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, most executives say they frequently find themselves spending way too much time on pointless interactions that drain their energy and produce information overload.

Most executives say they frequently find themselves spending way too much time on pointless interactions.

Three critical collaborative interactions

What can be done? We’ve found it’s possible to quickly improve collaborative interactions by categorizing them by type and making a few shifts accordingly. We’ve observed three broad categories of collaborative interactions (exhibit):

• Decision making, including complex or uncertain decisions (for example, investment decisions) and cross-cutting routine decisions (such as quarterly business reviews)
• Creative solutions and coordination, including innovation sessions (for example, developing new products) and routine working sessions (such as daily check-ins)
• Information sharing, including one-way communication (video, for instance) and two-way communication (such as town halls with Q&As)

Below we describe the key shifts required to improve each category of collaborative interaction, as well as tools you can use to pinpoint problems in the moment and take corrective action.

Decision making: Determining decision rights

When you’re told you’re “responsible” for a decision, does that mean you get to decide? What if you’re told you’re “accountable”? Do you cast the deciding vote, or does the person responsible? What about those who must be “consulted”? Sometimes they are told their input will be reflected in the final answer—can they veto a decision if they feel their input was not fully considered?

It’s no wonder one of the key factors for fast, high-quality decisions is to clarify exactly who makes them. Consider a success story at a renewable-energy company. To foster accountability and transparency, the company developed a 30-minute “role card” conversation for managers to have with their direct reports. As part of this conversation, managers explicitly laid out the decision rights and accountability metrics for each direct report. The result? Role clarity enabled easier navigation for employees, sped up decision making, and resulted in decisions that were much more customer focused.

How to define decision rights

We recommend a simple yet comprehensive approach for defining decision rights. We call it DARE, which stands for deciders, advisers, recommenders, and executors:

Deciders are the only ones with a vote (unlike the RACI model, which helps determine who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed). If the deciders get stuck, they should jointly agree on how to escalate the decision or figure out a way to move the process along, even if it means agreeing to “disagree and commit.”

Advisers have input and help shape the decision. They have an outsize voice in setting the context of the decision and have a big stake in its outcome—for example, it may affect their profit-and-loss statements—but they don’t get a vote.

Recommenders conduct the analyses, explore the alternatives, illuminate the pros and cons, and ultimately recommend a course of action to advisers and deciders. They see the day-to-day implications of the decision but also have no vote. Best-in-class recommenders offer multiple options and sometimes invite others to suggest more if doing so may lead to better outcomes. A common mistake of recommenders, though, is coming in with only one recommendation (often the status quo) and trying to convince everyone it’s the best path forward. In general, the more recommenders, the better the process—but not in the decision meeting itself.

Executers don’t give input but are deeply involved in implementing the decision. For speed, clarity, and alignment, executers need to be in the room when the decision is made so they can ask clarifying questions and spot flaws that might hinder implementation. Notably, the number of executers doesn’t necessarily depend on the importance of the decision. An M&A decision, for example, might have just two executors: the CFO and a business-unit head.

To make this shift, ensure everyone is crystal clear about who has a voice but no vote or veto. Our research indicates while it is often helpful to involve more people in decision making, not all of them should be deciders—in many cases, just one individual should be the decider (see sidebar “How to define decision rights”). Don’t underestimate the difficulty of implementing this. It often goes against our risk-averse instinct to ensure everyone is “happy” with a decision, particularly our superiors and major stakeholders. Executing and sustaining this change takes real courage and leadership.

Creative solutions and coordination: Open innovation

Routine working sessions are fairly straightforward. What many organizations struggle with is finding innovative ways to identify and drive toward solutions. How often do you tell your teams what to do versus empowering them to come up with solutions? While they may solve the immediate need to “get stuff done,” bureaucracies and micromanagement are a recipe for disaster. They slow down the organizational response to the market and customers, prevent leaders from focusing on strategic priorities, and harm employee engagement. Our research suggests  key success factors in winning organizations are empowering employees  and spending more time on high-quality coaching interactions.

How microenterprises empower employees to drive innovative solutions

Haier, a Chinese appliance maker, created more than 4,000 microenterprises (MEs) that share common approaches but operate independently. Haier has three types of microenterprises:

• Market-facing MEs have roots in Haier’s legacy appliance business, reinvented for today’s customer-centric, web-enabled world. They are expected to grow revenue and profit ten times faster than the industry average.
• Incubating MEs focus on emerging markets such as e-gaming or wrapping new business models around familiar products. They currently account for more than 10 percent of Haier’s market capitalization.
• “Node” MEs sell market-facing ME products and services such as design, manufacturing, and human-resources support.

Take Haier. The Chinese appliance maker divided itself into more than 4,000 microenterprises with ten to 15 employees each, organized in an open ecosystem of users, inventors, and partners (see sidebar “How microenterprises empower employees to drive innovative solutions”). This shift turned employees into energetic entrepreneurs who were directly accountable for customers. Haier’s microenterprises are free to form and evolve with little central direction, but they share the same approach to target setting, internal contracting, and cross-unit coordination. Empowering employees to drive innovative solutions has taken the company from innovation-phobic to entrepreneurial at scale. Since 2015, revenue from Haier Smart Home, the company’s listed home-appliance business, has grown by more than 18 percent a year, topping 209 billion renminbi ($32 billion) in 2020. The company has also made a string of acquisitions, including the 2016 purchase of GE Appliances, with new ventures creating more than $2 billion in market value.

Empowering others doesn’t mean leaving them alone. Successful empowerment, counterintuitively, doesn’t mean leaving employees alone. Empowerment requires leaders to give employees both the tools and the right level of guidance and involvement. Leaders should play what we call the coach role: coaches don’t tell people what to do but instead provide guidance and guardrails and ensure accountability, while stepping back and allowing others to come up with solutions.

Haier was able to use a variety of tools—including objectives and key results (OKRs) and common problem statements—to foster an agile way of working across the enterprise that focuses innovative organizational energy on the most important topics. Not all companies can do this, and some will never be ready for enterprise agility. But every organization can take steps to improve the speed and quality of decisions made by empowered individuals.

Managers who are great coaches, for example, have typically benefited from years of investment by mentors, sponsors, and organizations. We think all organizations should do more to improve the coaching skills of managers and help them to create the space and time to coach teams, as opposed to filling out reports, presenting in meetings, and other activities that take time away from driving impact through the work of their teams.

But while great coaches take time to develop, something as simple as a daily stand-up or check-in can drive horizontal connectivity, creating the space for teams to understand what others are doing and where they need help to drive work forward without having to specifically task anyone in a hierarchical way. You may also consider how you are driving a focus on outcomes over activities on a near-term and long-term basis. Whether it’s OKRs or something else, how is your organization proactively communicating a focus on impact and results over tasks and activities? What do you measure? How is it tracked? How is the performance of your people and your teams managed against it? Over what time horizons?

The importance of psychological safety. As you start this journey, be sure to take a close look at psychological safety. If employees don’t feel psychologically safe, it will be nearly impossible for leaders and managers to break through disempowering behaviors like constant escalation, hiding problems or risks, and being afraid to ask questions—no matter how skilled they are as coaches.

Employers should be on the lookout for common problems indicating that significant challenges to psychological safety lurk underneath the surface. Consider asking yourself and your teams questions to test the degree of psychological safety you have cultivated: Do employees have space to bring up concerns or dissent? Do they feel that if they make a mistake it will be held against them? Do they feel they can take risks or ask for help? Do they feel others may undermine them? Do employees feel valued for their unique skills and talents? If the answer to any of these is not a clear-cut “yes,” the organization likely has room for improvement on psychological safety and relatedness as a foundation to high-quality interactions within and between teams.

Information sharing: Fit-for-purpose interactions

Do any of these scenarios sound familiar? You spend a significant amount of time in meetings every day but feel like nothing has been accomplished. You jump from one meeting to another and don’t get to think on your own until 7 p.m. You wonder why you need to attend a series of meetings where the same materials are presented over and over again. You’re exhausted.

An increasing number of organizations have begun to realize the urgency of driving ruthless meeting efficiency and of questioning whether meetings are truly required at all to share information. Live interactions can be useful for information sharing, particularly when there is an interpretive lens required to understand the information, when that information is particularly sensitive, or when leaders want to ensure there’s ample time to process it and ask questions. That said, most of us would say that most meetings are not particularly useful and often don’t accomplish their intended objective.

We have observed that many companies are moving to shorter meetings (15 to 30 minutes) rather than the standard default of one-hour meetings in an effort to drive focus and productivity. For example, Netflix launched a redesign effort to drastically improve meeting efficiency, resulting in a tightly controlled meeting protocol. Meetings cannot go beyond 30 minutes. Meetings for one-way information sharing must be canceled in favor of other mechanisms such as a memo, podcast, or vlog. Two-way information sharing during meetings is limited by having attendees review materials in advance, replacing presentations with Q&As. Early data show Netflix has been able to reduce the number of meetings by more than 65 percent, and more than 85 percent of employees favor the approach.

Making meeting time a scarce resource is another strategy organizations are using to improve the quality of information sharing and other types of interactions occurring in a meeting setting. Some companies have implemented no-meeting days. In Japan, Microsoft’s “Work Life Choice Challenge” adopted a four-day workweek, reduced the time employees spend in meetings—and boosted productivity by 40 percent. 1 Bill Chappell, “4-day workweek boosted workers’ productivity by 40%, Microsoft Japan says,” NPR, November 4, 2019, npr.org. Similarly, Shopify uses “No Meeting Wednesdays” to enable employees to devote time to projects they are passionate about and to promote creative thinking. 2 Amy Elisa Jackson, “Feedback & meeting-free Wednesdays: How Shopify beats the competition,” Glassdoor, December 5, 2018, glassdoor.com. And Moveline’s product team dedicates every Tuesday to “Maker Day,” an opportunity to create and solve complex problems without the distraction of meetings. 3 Rebecca Greenfield, “Why your office needs a maker day,” Fast Company , April 17, 2014, fastcompany.com.

Finally, no meeting could be considered well scoped without considering who should participate, as there are real financial and transaction costs to meeting participation. Leaders should treat time spent in meetings as seriously as companies treat financial capital. Every leader in every organization should ask the following questions before attending any meeting: What’s this meeting for? What’s my role? Can I shorten this meeting by limiting live information sharing and focusing on discussion and decision making? We encourage you to excuse yourself from meetings if you don’t have a role in influencing the outcome and to instead get a quick update over email. If you are not essential, the meeting will still be successful (possibly more so!) without your presence. Try it and see what happens.

High-quality, focused interactions can improve productivity, speed, and innovation within any organization—and drive better business performance. We hope the above insights have inspired you to try some new techniques to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of collaboration within your organization.

Aaron De Smet is a senior partner in McKinsey’s New Jersey office; Caitlin Hewes is a consultant in the Atlanta office; Mengwei Luo is an associate partner in the New York office; J.R. Maxwell is a partner in the Washington, DC, office; and Patrick Simon is a partner in the Munich office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Author Talks: Beyond collaboration overload

Battling burnout: A conversation with resiliency expert Dr. Amit Sood

Author Talks: Why burnout is an epidemic—and what to do about it