Knowing when to Fix Problems and when to Amplify Strengths

For over 35 years, Oslo Consulting Group has worked with organisations navigating change. Our journey has taught us something counterintuitive: the most powerful transformations rarely come from choosing between opposing approaches, but from embracing the tension between them.

This insight is captured in one of our Performance Principles: the discipline of "both and" thinking. Today, I want to explore what this means in practice, particularly in the context of two fundamentally different approaches to organisational development: traditional problem-solving and Appreciative Inquiry.

The Evolution of Our Practice

Early in our history, we relied heavily on methodologies focused on problem identification and problem-solving. We would diagnose what was wrong, analyse root causes, and develop solutions to fix what was broken. This approach yielded results, but over time we noticed something curious: the most stunning transformations emerged not from our problem-focused work, but from moments when we engaged organisations in visioning their future, building on their strengths, and deepening dialogue about what was working well.

This observation gradually led us toward Appreciative Inquiry (AI), an approach developed by David Cooperrider that inquires into an organisation's "life-giving forces" rather than its problems. AI operates from the premise that human systems are both made and imagined by those who live within them. When people focus on what energises and sustains their work, they unlock creative possibilities that problem-focused thinking often cannot reach.

We've seen this principle in action countless times. When attention shifts from what's broken to what's possible, energy levels rise, engagement deepens, and solutions emerge that reflect a far greater span of creative thinking. Original problems often dissolve or become manageable as byproducts of building something better.

The Paradox We Cannot Ignore

Yet here's the paradox: as powerful as Appreciative Inquiry is, we also know that some situations demand direct problem-solving. When a critical process is failing, when compliance issues threaten the organisation, when systemic dysfunction is causing genuine harm—these are not moments to inquire appreciatively about what's working well. These are moments to name the problem clearly and tackle it straight on.

The question isn't whether to use problem-solving or Appreciative Inquiry. The question is: when do we apply which approach, and how do we develop the wisdom to know the difference?

Understanding When to Apply What

Traditional problem-solving excels when:

• There's a clear technical problem with identifiable root causes
• Compliance, safety, or urgent operational issues require immediate correction
• The organisation's pain points are so acute that ignoring them would undermine any appreciative work
• Stakeholders need to see an acknowledgement of real difficulties before they can engage in positive exploration

Appreciative Inquiry shines when:

• The organisation needs energy and motivation to move forward
• Multiple perspectives must be integrated into a shared vision
• The path forward is unclear and requires creative thinking
• Past problem-solving efforts have created defensiveness or blame cultures
• Building momentum and engagement is as significant as the technical solution

The artistry lies not in choosing one approach over the other, but in knowing how to orchestrate both. Sometimes we begin with Appreciative Inquiry to generate energy and possibility, then apply focused problem-solving to address specific obstacles. Other times, we must first tackle an urgent problem before the organisation can engage appreciatively with its future.

The Deeper Principle:
Transition Comes From Within

This "both and" thinking connects to a more fundamental understanding of how change actually happens in human systems. Chilean biologist Humberto Maturana taught us that living systems are structurally determined and organizationally closed. This means that no external intervention can directly cause change within a system—we cannot "make" an organisation transform. The system can only change from within, through its own internal dynamics and meaning-making processes.

What we can do as consultants is create conditions that support internal transformation. Maturana would say we can only "perturb" a system, not instruct it. Our role is to introduce perturbations that may trigger the system's own self-organising processes.

In practice, this means we have three primary levers:

Appreciate: When we help an organisation see and articulate its existing strengths, values, and life-giving forces, we create perturbations that can shift attention and energy. Appreciation isn't just positive thinking—it's a rigorous inquiry into what actually works, which becomes raw material for the organisation's own reimagining.

Disturb: Sometimes systems need more than appreciation—they need disruption. Problem-solving, when done well, introduces necessary disturbances. Naming dysfunctions, challenging assumptions, and presenting uncomfortable data—these create perturbations that the system must integrate. The key is that we're not fixing the system; we're introducing information and experiences that the system must process in its own way.

Reflect: Perhaps most critically, we must create space for reflection. Change doesn't happen in the moment of intervention—it occurs in the integration afterwards. Whether we've engaged in appreciative exploration or problem-solving analysis, the system needs time to metabolise the experience, make meaning of it, and allow new patterns to emerge.

The Practical Application

In our work with clients, this translates into a flexible, responsive approach. We might begin an engagement by appreciatively exploring an organisation's history of successful change, building energy and engagement. When we encounter a genuine obstacle—perhaps a structural issue or a deeply rooted dysfunction—we don't shy away from it. We name it clearly, analyse it rigorously, and work to address it directly.

But we always return to the appreciative frame: What do we want to build? What strengths can we leverage? What possibilities emerge when we address this problem?

The "both and" principle means we're not trapped in methodological orthodoxy. We're free to use whatever approach serves the organisation's transformation, guided by the understanding that all we're really doing is creating conditions—appreciating, disturbing, and allowing time for reflection—that enable the system to change itself.

The Wisdom to Know

Developing the wisdom to know when to apply problem-solving and when to apply Appreciative Inquiry comes from experience, certainly, but also from deep listening to the organisation itself. What does this system need right now? What kind of perturbation will be most useful? Are we trying to fix something that's actively broken, or are we trying to help people imagine and build something new?

Often, the answer is both. And that's precisely the point.

As Ken Gergen reminds us in the opening quote of our approach to Appreciative Inquiry: "We recognise that as people create meaning together, so do they sow the seeds of action." Whether we're solving problems or amplifying strengths, we're ultimately engaged in the same work—helping people create meaning together in ways that enable them to transform from within.

The discipline of "both and" isn't about compromise or middle paths. It's about embracing the full complexity of organisational life, using every tool at our disposal with wisdom and discernment, always in service of the system's own capacity for self-renewal.

For more insights into organisational transformation and our consulting approach, visit our blog. To explore the complete set of principles that guide our work, see our Performance Principles.