Back to Articles main-page.
Not all challenges are equal
One of the major impediments to us solving problems such as climate change, world poverty, drugs etc etc is that we tend to treat them as technical challenges when they are more often adaptive challenges. To understand why this is a problem you need to understand what the difference between a technical and an adaptive challenge is.
First and foremost I want to point out that it isn't a matter of complexity or difficulty. This is the single biggest misconception I have among my students....technical problems can be very complex and adaptive challenges can be quite simple...the difference between them is in how you go about solving them. Technical challenges generally belong to a certain class of problem that you have already dealt with. This means that they can be solved using the capabilities and thinking that already exists within your group or organisation. These capabilities might need to be applied in different ways but basically you already have all the tools you need. There is also a limited number of correct answers to a technical challenge, solving it is a matter of finding the right answer and then having the will to apply it. An example of a technical challenge might be to get increased production out of your existing production line...the skills and experience generally exist with your organisation, or if not can be readily obtained, there is an accepted methodology for dealing with the issue and there are a finite number of solutions. It then becomes a matter of finding the one that fits best and implementing it.
With adaptive challenges not only don't you have capabilities and knowledge to solve the problem but in many cases it is not even clear what the problem is or whether there even is one. The problem is very rarely easily defined and may even be a symptom of another problem. Take climate change for example....not only don't we know for sure what the exact problem is but there is a still a large group of people who dispute that there is even a problem at all. And, even if we could define the exact problem, is climate change the real issue or is it actually a symptom of a wider problem such as mass global consumerism...can we solve one without solving the other?
For problems that have been around a little longer, like drug abuse or world poverty, the adaptive nature is further identified by the fact that lots of solutions have been tried without any consistent or noticeable effect. In fact, often, a lot of the solution applied have actually made the problem worse. Camillus (2008) goes a bit further and suggests that some of the problems we might identify as adaptive are actually wicked problems. The key difference is that Camillus believes that one of the characteristics of wicked problems is that they may not actually be able to be solved and that our strategy should be to minimise or contain the impacts. Part of the reason they can't be solved is that there is often no identifiable end point to many adaptive / wicked problems. When will we know that the global war on drugs is over? And what does it being 'over' actually mean?
Adding further to the complexity of adaptive challenges is that they tend to involve a range of different stakeholders, all with different perceptions of both the problem and the possible solutions. Because of this addressing adaptive challenges requires dealing with a whole range of conflicting attitudes and beliefs and it is almost inescapable that solving this type of problems is going to mean loss to some, if not all, of the stakeholders. And it is no secret to tell you that people will fight very hard to avoid losing something they hold dear. As an exercise think of a range of possible solutions to the problems associated with climate change and then try to determine who might lose out, in some way, from each one. If you have a solution where there are no losers then please tell everyone you know!
So now you have some insight into the nature of adaptive challenges. How to solve them is a subject for another time...but the good news is that it is generally a long, slow process that involves changing the attitudes of a lot of people and dealing with the loss felt by a whole lot more. Sound like fun?:-)
References
Camillus, John C., "Strategy as a Wicked Problem" Harvard Business Review, May 2008, hbr.org.