Your solution may be a boss's problem

I’ve written about subordinate’s foolish tendency to “only bring the boss solutions, not problems” before. But it keeps coming back and grating.

As career counsel, I’ve heard worse. In the right hands, in the right circumstances, it is exactly right. But the hands are rarely right and the conditions almost always wrong. Moreover, while at higher executive ranks it makes sense and applies, lower down the organizational totem pole, it does not really apply the same way.

This essay means to impart two points of advice : one to subordinates; one to bosses.

To subordinates: By doing this you may be cosplaying for a higher rank. Govern yourself and your expectations accordingly. Be wary of any boss suggesting this is his/her policy without elaboration.
To bosses: If you are not within two layers of the top and propagate this mindset, be clear with yourself and your subordinates that it is developmental coaching and mentoring.¹

Before we decompose it for argument: this position is not universal—nor could any ever be. It challenges the apparently pervasive downloading of responsibility.² It is not at all to say a superior tasking a subordinate to address a problem the subordinate is better placed to address is not in order. In fact, that is exactly the point of proper people management. (Alas, that too, is not universal.)

A core premise of this entire argument—which is certainly not absolute—is that while people managers may be neither universally capable nor specifically expert, “people management” cannot be effectively divorced from an expert area. Such an area may be wide: research, operations, marketing/sales, war, making policy, etc. Yet even so, it is a contextual prerequisite of people management. That’s why archetypal people managers—professional sports coaches and GMs—do not cross specialty domains. Bobby Knight never turned up at an Olympic pool; neither did Bill Belichick didn’t cross town to stand behind the Bruins’ bench.

Organization and Hierarchy

How do organizations and hierarchies work? Specifically, how does an organization select and what does it expect of its human resources in performance and promotion? We’ll disregard the very real but unique coups of ambition and charismatic ascensions of specific individuals. There is no point building on the foundation of nihilist, “ruthlessness not competency is the answer” that may arise out of specific circumstances.³

It is the nature of organizational hierarchy—or it used to be—that the more experienced and capable rose closer to the top. Larded atop domain skill and experience (and maybe a dollop of charismatic self-aggrandizement or (nepotistic) patronage) was management or at least supervisory capability.
Selection is often the complex expression of expected performance based on proven narrow experience/expertise plus exhibited broader experience plus the ephemeral quality of leadership. Organizations (mostly) evolved past elevating the “best” or longest-serving member of a cadre to a supervisory/managerial role because too often that just turned star performing contributors into persistently underperforming managers. (The jobs are different.) Overlearning that lesson is to ignore the underlying domain expertise requirement and see only the “people management” capabilities.
Thus, both because of the granted discretion to act and experience (if not ability), employees in a hierarchy should be able to handle and deal effectively with more problems the higher they rise. The inverse is also generally true.⁴
Irrespective, at every rung of the ladder an individual is expected to be able and ready to easily or inventively deal with problems that fit (i.e., can be addressed up to) that level’s discretionary capability.

The Boss’s Problems

Assuming (hoping?) the boss is not a micromanager, it should be self-evident that the problems to escalate to the boss are those beyond the employee’s purview (especially of authority) or have proven too challenging for the employee. In short, the employee needs the boss to address a boss problem.

By definition there are only two types of problem an employee ought to take to the boss.
- Problems that push the employee beyond his/her skill and inventiveness (i.e., the employee has tried without success). The employee needs guidance and tutelage.
- Problems beyond the employee’s capacity. Not only does the subordinate possibly have insufficient experience, (s)he has not the necessary authority, ability, rank, or status. The boss needs to sort the issue out.

In neither case is it obvious the subordinate’s insights could guide or help the boss except to report the situation and what’s already been tried. It’s a fair presumption that the boss may not have the same specific, up-to-date expertise as the subordinate; but (s)he would certainly have more capacity to situate it within a broader context. Besides, subordinates rarely have all the information needed to conceive an appropriate solution. So it is unfair and presumptuous for the subordinate to do more than express an understanding of the situation, make a suggestion, and learn.

Perhaps a brief detour to acknowledge that there are appropriate times for subordinates to bring the boss solutions not problems. Logically, employees should come to the boss with solutions rather than problems… when they have the capacity to do so. For example, when they are closest to the problem and best equipped to resolve it. When exactly is that? Usually when they are asked (or instructed to) by the boss.

Problems and Solutions

We have to rule out when a boss specifically assigns problem resolution to a subordinate whose job encompasses such an assignment. Barring this, for the boss to expect solutions from an employee seeking help with a genuine obstacle under earlier conditions, there are only two valid scenarios—and one damning alternative. The scenarios:

The boss is proactively teaching and training, expecting the subordinate to stretch his/her muscles for the future. (All things being equal, a good boss would discuss and ultimately “bless” a course of action, sending the subordinate off to apply it—for experience.⁵)
The boss is receiving a request to do his/her part (“You have to do this…”) with a suggestion for approach and resolution. Again, a good boss is reactively training—and maybe promotability assessing—because the problem is genuinely not within the subordinate’s duties/responsibility.

Conclusion

By this logic, the only reasonable cause for an employee to presume to provide the boss with solutions not problems—excepting when that is exactly the employee’s assignment—is when the subordinate is being practically trained/coached/mentored/guided… by the boss.

The promised damning alternative is the employee trying or being expected to operate above his/herself and do the boss’s job for him/her. Not a good look from any angle. It may mark the employee as overly zealous if not harmfully ambitious. If at the direction of the boss and not for the express purpose of development, this boss may be insufficiently competent or capable. Pro tip to subordinates: For so many reasons, run—don’t walk—away.

Institute X is a transformation leadership consultancy and leader coaching firm. One of its online presences is The Change Playbook. Check out the abundance of pragmatic guidance for making change happen. Subscribe to be notified of new, fresh content.

Timothy Grayson is a Canadian (digital) transformation consultant, coach, and writer. Among other things, he has provided thechangeplaybook.com as a practical resource for change and project managers and leaders. Find him at institute-x.org.

If it is not, at least you needn’t worry about Imposter Syndrome; you are an imposter. ↩︎
Funny: too many in hierarchies, when not downloading responsibility are uploading accountability. That’s a different paper. ↩︎
By happy coincidence, career ruthlessness and occupational competence sometimes collide. Catching such lightning in a bottle is virtually impossible, never mind crafting instructions for it. ↩︎
Lower ranking (misplaced) employees punching above their weight suggests coming promotion, poor HR processes, or incipient exodus. Again, different story. ↩︎
This is not the place to excavate the spectrum of possibilities for handling situation, from having the subordinate come up with the solution to telling the subordinate what to do; from directing actions to leaving it in the subordinate’s hands. ↩︎