Jamie Flinchbaugh's Blog

Jason Trujillo, a transformational leader with a wide range of experiences, joined Jamie Flinchbaugh on the People Solve Problems podcast to share his unconventional path to becoming a transformational leader and his philosophy on structured problem-solving. With a career spanning companies like Stanley Black & Decker, IBM, Intel, and Harley-Davidson, Jason brings a unique perspective shaped by an unexpected beginning—art school.

Jason explained that his engineering studies actually started at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, where he explored kinetic sculpture and human-machine interaction. This creative foundation became central to how he approaches problems today. He described problem-solving as fundamentally a creative process, always returning to questions like “What am I looking at? What does that mean? What can I do with it?” This artistic lens has stayed with him throughout his career, providing a unique vantage point for tackling complex business challenges.

A key insight Jason shared is his belief in the power of constraints to fuel creativity. He noted that while young artists often rebel against limitations, there’s nothing harder than facing a blank canvas with no boundaries. Jason sees direct parallels between art and business problem solving—just as telling someone to “fix the company” is too broad to be actionable, asking an artist to “make something” without constraints can be paralyzing. He emphasized that frameworks, heuristics, and rubrics provide essential guide rails that allow creative thinking to flourish within defined boundaries.

When discussing his role as a transformation leader, Jason acknowledged the need to wear multiple hats depending on the situation. While he sometimes wishes he could simply fix a broken machine on his own, his current work requires shifting between being an accountable owner in executive meetings and a coach helping others develop their problem-solving capabilities. Jason finds the coaching role most rewarding because he gets to watch people learn, develop, and ultimately succeed—though he candidly admitted that winning doesn’t happen as often as people assume, which makes success even sweeter.

Jason introduced a particularly helpful concept he calls “altitude” when working with teams. He explained that sometimes people are working on the right problem but viewing it at the wrong level of detail. Engineers, for instance, might get stuck in technical specifics that aren’t relevant to the broader business challenge. By helping them adjust their altitude—lifting up to see the bigger picture—Jason can help technical minds engage with problems at a more appropriate scope.

On the topic of ideation and brainstorming, Jason admitted he used to be “triggered” by traditional brainstorming sessions that often devolved into appeasing the loudest voice or rushing to conclusions. Instead, he advocates for structured ideation using frameworks that make clear whether the group is trying to expand possibilities or converge on solutions. Jason stressed the importance of knowing what outcome to expect from an ideation session and preparing accordingly, transforming what could be an aimless discussion into a constructive planning session that leads to concrete action.

Throughout the conversation, Jason emphasized his core principle: don’t solve general problems because nobody has a general problem. Success comes from getting specific, using frameworks intentionally, and helping others build their own problem-solving capabilities.

Connect with Jason Trujillo on LinkedIn to learn more about his approach to transformation and operational excellence.

 

The post Jason Trujillo: How Constraints and Frameworks Fuel Creative Problem Solving appeared first on JFlinch.

AI should never replace problem-solving, as problem-solving is a truly human skill, or a combination of skills, that is an act of discovery. However, AI can act as a great co-intelligence, helping us broaden our perspective, challenge our logic, or simply get unstuck when our wheels are spinning. In this course, we outline how AI can be used within your problem-solving, walk through a specific example, and share various prompts that you can use to get your problem-solving started.

 

 

My problem:

I will describe my problem, and then I will give you prompts with specific instructions about this problem. 

We want to work on product development innovations that are a long way off, likely to take 3 years to develop. We’re a small company and don’t have a lot of excess resources. Most of the resources are tied to current-year projects that have clear objectives and returns, and then those same resources are challenged to take on cost-reduction and component-replacement projects, sometimes on an emergency basis, further distracting them from any long-term focus. We’ve been struggling with this for a few years and need to find a way to get some dedicated efforts on high-risk, high-reward product innovation.

Problem statement from coach:

Act as a problem-solving coach specializing in problem framing techniques. I need help crafting effective problem statements for [describe your situation/challenge here].

Please provide:

Two narrowly-scoped problem statements (focusing on specific, immediate issues with clear boundaries)Two broadly-scoped problem statements (addressing systemic issues, root causes, or multiple stakeholder perspectives)

For each problem statement, briefly note:

Key assumptions it makesWhat it includes vs. excludes from consideration

Finally, recommend which problem statement would be most effective to pursue, explaining your reasoning based on factors like feasibility, impact, and resource requirements.

Problem statement from SME:

Now adopt the perspective of an expert in [specify domain: e.g., product development, operations, customer experience, finance, etc.].

Using this expertise, create new problem statements for the same situation:

Two narrowly-scoped problem statements from this domain’s viewpointTwo broadly-scoped problem statements from this domain’s viewpoint

For each statement, note how this domain’s perspective shapes what seems important or urgent.

Then briefly explain:

How these problem statements differ from the previous coach’s perspectiveWhat unique insights this domain expertise brings to understanding the problemWhether this new perspective changes which problem statement you’d recommend pursuing

Root cause from coach:

Act as a problem-solving coach specializing in diagnostic techniques. Based on the problem statement we selected: [insert chosen problem statement here]

Help me investigate this problem by recommending:

Three distinct methods for understanding the current state, root cause or causes, or the cause and effect. 

For each method, provide:

Brief description of how to implement itWhat specific information it will reveal about our problemTime/resource requirements (low, medium, high)Potential blind spots or limitations

Finally, recommend a sequence for using these methods (which to do first, second, third) and explain how they build on each other to create a comprehensive understanding.

Root cause from SME:

Act as a subject matter expert in [specify domain relevant to your problem]. Based on our current state analysis of: [insert problem statement and key findings from current state investigation]

Identify potential causes and contributing factors for this problem:

Provide 4-6 potential causes organized by type:

Root causes (fundamental issues that, if fixed, would eliminate the problem)Contributing factors (conditions that worsen or accelerate the problem)Triggering events (specific incidents that make the problem visible)

For each potential cause, specify:

Evidence level: Strong/Moderate/Weak (based on how well it fits the current state data)Sphere of influence: What this cause directly affects (people, processes, technology, etc.)Testable hypothesis: A specific “If X is truly a cause, then we should observe Y” statementQuick validation method: One concrete way to test this hypothesis within 1-2 weeks

Note any causes that might be interconnected or have cascading effects.

Do not provide solutions at this stage—focus only on understanding causation.

Ideation from SME:

Act as a subject matter expert in [specify domain]. Based on the validated causes we identified: [list 2-3 key causes from previous analysis]

Generate a diverse solution portfolio organized into these categories:

Immediate/Incremental Solutions (2-3)Can be implemented within 30 daysRequire minimal resources or approvalsAddress symptoms or contributing factors Systemic/Comprehensive Solutions (2-3)Address root causesRequire significant time/resources/change managementCreate lasting structural change “Obvious but Problematic” Solutions (2)Solutions that seem logical but have hidden flawsInclude why they’re tempting and what makes them problematic Creative/Unconventional Solutions (2-3)Challenge assumptions about what’s possibleMay require paradigm shifts or new capabilitiesInclude at least one “wild card” idea

For each solution provide:

Which cause(s) it addresses (specific reference to your causal analysis)How it interrupts the causal chain (mechanism of action)Implementation complexity: Simple/Moderate/ComplexKey dependency or risk: The one factor that could make or break this solution

Finally, note which solutions could be combined for synergistic effects.

Ideation from another source:

Act as an expert on innovative business strategies. For our problem: [insert problem statement], explore how different companies’ signature approaches might offer unique solutions.

Select 4-5 companies from different categories below that are most relevant to your problem:

Category A: Customer Experience Masters

Disney (emotional engagement, experience design)Chick-fil-A (service excellence, operational simplicity)Apple (user-centric design, premium positioning)

Category B: Scale & Efficiency Innovators

Amazon (customer obsession, long-term thinking, automation)Netflix (data-driven personalization, disruption)Google (technical excellence, moonshot thinking)

Category C: Innovation Process Leaders

3M (systematic innovation, 15% time)IDEO (design thinking, rapid prototyping)Procter & Gamble (consumer research, brand building)

For each company you select, provide:

Core principle they’d apply (their signature strength relevant to this problem)Specific solution approach (how they’d tackle it using their methodology)Unique metric they’d track (what KPI would matter most to them)Trade-off they’d accept (what they’d sacrifice to maintain their principles)

Conclude with:

Which company’s approach best fits your organizational cultureWhich elements could be combined into a hybrid approachWhat capability gaps you’d need to close to implement these approaches

 

OR –

Act as an expert on problem-solving methodologies and thinking styles. For our problem: [insert problem statement], explore how different archetypal problem-solving approaches might offer unique insights.

Choose 3-4 figures from different categories below whose thinking style best matches your problem type:

Category A: Systematic Experimenters

Thomas Edison (iterative testing, “99% perspiration”)MacGyver (resourcefulness, working with constraints)

Category B: Theoretical/First Principles Thinkers

Albert Einstein (thought experiments, reframing assumptions)Aristotle (logical categorization, systematic analysis)

Category C: Critical Questioners

Socrates (questioning assumptions, exposing contradictions)Sherlock Holmes (deductive reasoning, observing overlooked details)

Category D: Lateral/Creative Thinkers

Mark Twain (humor to reveal absurdity, common sense wisdom)Leonardo da Vinci (interdisciplinary connections, visual thinking)

For each figure you select, provide:

Core thinking pattern: Their signature cognitive approachKey question they’d ask: The first thing they’d want to knowUnconventional method they’d use: Their unique investigative techniqueBlind spot they’d have: What their approach might missOne specific tactic: A concrete action inspired by their method that you could actually implement

Synthesis: Identify which thinking style is most absent from your organization’s typical approach and explain how incorporating it might unlock new solutions.

The post A primer on AI and Problem Solving appeared first on JFlinch.

In this episode of People Solve Problems, host Jamie Flinchbaugh welcomes Norbert Majerus, a creative problem solver at Norbert Majerus Consulting. With 45 years in industrial creativity and 60 US patents to his name, Norbert brings deep expertise from his years implementing lean product development at Goodyear’s global innovation centers.

Norbert draws a clear distinction between creativity and innovation that cuts through the confusion around these terms. Creativity, he explains, is about generating new ideas and creating something new. Innovation happens when those creative ideas are brought to market and generate value. Not every creative idea becomes an innovation—only a select few make that leap—but creativity remains essential across all problem-solving contexts, whether the immediate goal involves profit or not.

The conversation turns to a pressing challenge: many organizations find themselves trapped in a box of their own making, unable to think beyond established patterns. Norbert identifies several significant obstacles to industrial creativity. Fear stands as the most formidable barrier. He shares a personal story of nearly being fired by a vice president who refused to allow risky new ideas, illustrating how leaders focused on protecting their careers create cultures where people avoid taking chances. When the perceived risk of failure outweighs the potential for success in someone’s mind, creativity withers.

Beyond fear, Norbert points to the physical environment as a surprisingly important factor. He contrasts his experience visiting Google—where the environment changed dramatically every 50 steps, with bikes and stimulating spaces—against his own workplace, which was redesigned with uniform white walls and strict prohibitions on personalization. Environment shapes culture, and culture shapes creativity.

Norbert emphasizes that today’s complex problems cannot be solved within narrow functional boundaries. True creativity requires collaboration across disciplines and departments, bringing together different perspectives. Yet many companies inadvertently educate their people to work against each other rather than together. Breaking down these silos requires intentional cultural work.

To foster collaboration, Norbert developed a powerful exercise involving teams solving five interconnected puzzles. Participants initially approach the task individually, trying to solve their own puzzle first. They consistently fail until they realize they can only succeed by helping each other. Even resistant leaders eventually grasp the lesson. Norbert stresses that behaviors must come before beliefs—lecturing about collaboration doesn’t work, but creating experiences that demonstrate its value does.

For managers who want to move in this direction without the authority to change company culture, Norbert offers practical advice. First, find a sponsor or supporter who can help break down walls and provide air cover. Second, and critically, start with something significant. Rather than working on countless tiny projects that never make a visible impact, tackle a problem big enough that solving it will bring others to your door, asking how you did it. Success with meaningful challenges builds momentum far more effectively than incremental wins on trivial matters.

Throughout his career, Norbert learned that subtle approaches work better than direct mandates. Taking teams to visit other companies nearby, exposing them to different ways of working, proved transformative. Within six months, teams that initially fought and blamed each other were asking, “How can I help you?” when problems arose.

For more insights on lean-driven innovation and creative problem-solving, visit Norbert’s website at leandriveninnovation.com or connect with him on LinkedIn.   You can find Norbert’s books here: Winning Innovation and Lean-Driven Innovation

   

The post Norbert Majerus: Breaking Out of the Box in Design Creativity appeared first on JFlinch.

Sometimes, CEO succession goes horribly wrong, and that’s very often public. We see the failings of the CEO selected and think, as they fire them, “How could they get this so wrong?” That’s convenient Monday morning quarterbacking, because the reality is that it is very tricky, and no one (except maybe search firms) gets a lot of practice at it. Some of those that made it less than two years: Hein Schumacher (Unilever), Michael Conway (Starbucks), Ted Christie (Spirit Airlines), Pat Gelsinger (Intel), and finally, Kohl’s Ashley Buchanan, who only lasted 100 days. A PwC study found that $112 billion in shareholder value is lost annually because companies pick the wrong people to lead them.

I recently went to Philly (or Philadelphia, PA if you’re proper) to attend a discussion on CEO succession hosted by the National Association of Corporate Directors at the brand new KPMG offices. I didn’t take a picture at the event, so you just get my picture of Philly. 

On the panel included CEO, Spirovant Sciences, Dr. Joan Lau; Consultant at Egon Zehnder, Jeremy Lisnoff; Chairman and former CEO of J.G. Wentworth, David Miller; and retired Philadelphia Office Managing Partner, KPMG, Frank Mattei. This was a fantastic program and the reason I value my NACD membership, and while I won’t summarize the entire discussion, I do have some important reflections worth sharing. 

We may be undervaluing internal candidates, and overvaluing external “superheros” 

CEOs have in the past been considered superheroes in a way that they are good at everything. But that’s rarely true, or sufficient. Some may be more of a people leader, some more business execution, and others great strategists. But you’re not likely to get the superhero, and even if you could, it still doesn’t mean they’re a good fit and the right individual for the job. As Gallup has stated: “The great leaders we’ve studied are not well-rounded individuals. They have not become world-class leaders by being average or above-average in different aspects of leadership. They’ve become world-class in a relatively limited number of areas of leadership.”

An absolutely amazing stat for me is that the average tenure of an internal candidate CEO is 6.7 years, and for an external hire is 3.7 years. Sure, there are circumstances that skew some of that data, but just on the surface, it’s a powerful stat that suggests internal candidates should be given major consideration. 

If you were already supporting the current CEO, who do you think was the mentor of that internal candidate? If you want stability and consistency, at least for some of the most important things like culture, then an internal candidate can be a great choice, IF you are supporting and developing them correctly (more on that later).

That doesn’t mean putting the “heir apparent” tag on someone as that has lots of complicated consequences. For example, you are starting a clock under which that individual will expect to be elevated. Don’t make promises that you can’t, or won’t, keep. On top of that, the CEO can start to look like a lame duck, or at least less engaged, as the heir apparently begins to throw their new weight around. 

Egon Zehnder finds that the #1 predictor of success in the CEO role is an extraordinary curiosity about themselves and the world around them. That doesn’t surprise me, and it’s how you future-proof around a strategy, or competitive environment, or crisis that you can’t predict. By developing potential internal candidates, you can certainly test for that extraordinary curiosity. 

Finally, remember that not everyone who looks like a candidate is a candidate. Someone might be a candidate at age 55, but by 57 they are starting to think differently about their life. Circumstances change. Motivations change. Have conversations without making promises, because if you assume too much, you will likely make mistakes. 

CEO succession isn’t a process but a “constellation of activities” 

Said another way, if your CEO announces their retirement or departure and then you begin a search for a new candidate, you are certainly doing it wrong. 

As just indicated, internal candidates are fantastic choices if your development of senior-level positions is “always on.” In my opinion, at senior levels, you are either exploiting existing talent or developing future talent. 

But we also have to be aware that we are asking boards of directors to exercise a rarely used muscle and do it flawlessly. Boards should not have a lot of experience replacing CEOS, and if they do, something is likely wrong. Of course, they have experience and judgement, but that doesn’t mean they’ve practiced applying it to this particular decision. Go around the table and ask how many have actually done this before. 

Once you do, you need to be developing a profile for the CEO rather than a job description (since that job description is “you’re accountable for everything”). This is one of those moments where it’s extremely valuable to get input independently from each of the board members and then compile, and debate, and debate further, that input. Heindrick and Struggles states: “The development and assessment process starts with creating the future CEO profile, which the board should develop in conjunction with the current CEO. The profile is based on the company’s strategy and defines the crucial CEO skills and attributes for the next phase of company growth.”

Part of those sets of activities is being prepared for the “hit by bus” scenario, although these days it seems more likely a “went to a Coldplay concert” scenario. Who will take over in a pinch? Knowing that someone is ONLY an interim candidate, versus an interim-to-permanent candidate, is important, because it very quickly changes the process. At the very least, whoever took over as interim should not also be on point for the replacement search. 

As part of these processes, be prepared for a more-than-thorough background check. It’s amazing when a CEO is fired for ethical lapses, how many employees say out loud: “I can’t believe it took them this long,” because it seemed like everyone knew. You know that your employees are starting their own background check the moment an announcement is made. 

Your next CEO hire is vital and hard. Get the best help you can, be rigorous, take it seriously, and once you make it, do everything possible to ensure it is successful. 

 

The post Get CEO Succession Right appeared first on JFlinch.

Section 5 from the People Solve Problems Book
The Culture of Problem Solving: How Leaders Shape Success

A strong culture doesn’t just solve problems—it prevents them.

A problem-solving culture isn’t built on processes alone—it’s built on behaviors. Key Behaviors of a Problem-Solving Culture explores the role leaders play in shaping environments where critical thinking thrives. From leading by example to architecting systems that support continuous learning, this series uncovers the essentials of building a culture where solving problems is second nature.

Watch the YouTube series here

 

The Leader as a System Architect

Learn why leaders must design local problem-solving systems that work for their context. Discover four key elements: managing the problem landscape, creating effective help chains, prioritizing problems, and building capacity and capability for solutions.

 

Build the Culture for Problem Solving

Discover why leaders must shape behaviors to create an effective problem-solving culture. Learn to create experiences that reinforce learning, role-model desired behaviors, and remove friction that prevents good problem-solving practices.

 

Shaping Problem Solving

Good leaders don’t just assign tasks—they teach their teams how to think through problems. Find out how to set clear boundaries, connect the right people, and decide whether you’re treating symptoms or fixing the real issue.

 

The Leader Solves Their Own Problems

Most leaders try to solve all 25 problems their team faces. But those 25 problems usually come from just 5 root causes. Learn how to spot those patterns—and when jumping in to help actually makes things worse.

 

 

 

The post The Culture of Problem Solving: How Leaders Shape Success appeared first on JFlinch.

In this episode of People Solve Problems, host Jamie Flinchbaugh speaks with Maureen (Moe) Rinkunas, Director of Insights Membership at Rock Health Advisory. Moe brings over 20 years of experience spanning corporate innovation, venture studios, and advisory leadership at organizations including DuPont, Accenture, Dreamit Ventures, and Redesign Health.

Moe opens the conversation by sharing her fundamental belief that everyone possesses problem-solving capabilities, shaped by evolution itself. However, she emphasizes that people bring different strengths to the table. When working with teams, she takes time to understand individual styles and leverages them strategically throughout the innovation process. Moe explains how naturally optimistic team members excel at generating ideas and maintaining energy during brainstorming sessions, while more skeptical individuals prove invaluable when narrowing options and making final decisions. By understanding these diverse strengths, she creates environments where different personalities contribute at the right moments.

The conversation shifts to collaboration and the messy nature of innovation work. Moe stresses that psychological safety forms the foundation of effective problem-solving. She explains that trust must be built over time, creating a reserve that teams can draw upon when facing uncomfortable challenges. She shares a powerful example from her time at DuPont, where leaders instituted a “Dead Project Day” on the Day of the Dead, encouraging people at all levels to share their failures. Initially met with skepticism, this practice became an annual tradition that normalized risk-taking and built lasting trust within the organization.

When discussing innovation leadership, Moe introduces the concept of leaders as snowplows. She describes how innovation leaders must clear paths for their teams by navigating organizational politics, communicating effectively with senior leadership, and helping others understand that innovative projects require different metrics and timelines than traditional initiatives. This protective role helps create safe spaces where teams can do their best work, even when external pressures threaten psychological safety.

Moe advocates strongly for test-and-learn approaches in innovation work. She emphasizes developing minimal viable solutions paired with “what must be true” statements that guide testing priorities. Her teams create learning plans with clear testing commitments, specific metrics, and defined timeframes. Moe suggests framing decisions around manageable increments, asking what information teams need to decide whether to continue, pivot, or stop after six weeks rather than demanding absolute certainty. This approach makes testing feel achievable and keeps teams moving forward with practical confidence.

Looking at healthcare innovation specifically, Moe identifies significant opportunities in an industry facing mounting pressures around staffing shortages and affordability challenges. She notes that while many innovators develop point solutions addressing specific problems, the real opportunity lies in creating connections between these innovations. She encourages entrepreneurs to think about integrated, holistic healthcare experiences that reflect how people actually live with and experience their health.

Throughout the conversation, Moe demonstrates how thoughtful attention to team dynamics, psychological safety, and structured learning processes enables innovation work to flourish. Her insights offer practical guidance for anyone leading creative problem-solving efforts in complex organizational environments.

To learn more about Moe’s work, visit Rock Health Advisory or connect with her on LinkedIn 

 

The post Building Trust and Testing to Learn with Moe Rinkunas, Rock Health Advisory appeared first on JFlinch.

Section 4 from the People Solve Problems Book

Coaching Problem Solving: Building Thinkers, Not Just Fixers

Real impact doesn’t come from giving answers—it comes from building better problem solvers.
Great leaders don’t just solve problems—they develop others to do the same. Coaching Problem Solving explores how to guide teams toward solutions through self-discovery, questioning, and structured coaching models. This series analyzes when, where, and how to coach problem-solving effectively, turning challenges into learning opportunities.

 

Watch the YouTube series here

 

Why Coaching for Problem Solving

Discover why coaching is essential for developing problem-solving mastery. Learn how training alone isn’t enough, and why coaching benefits both coach and learner through dynamic, personal growth and repeated practice.

 

Who, When and Where of Coaching

Learn how to choose the right coach/coachee match, decide between event-based or cadence-based coaching, and understand why coaching at the point of activity matters. Discover the importance of being strategic about who you coach.

 

 

Coaching Through Self Discovery

Good coaching uses a simple cycle: Plan something, Do it, Study what happened, Act on what you learned. This helps people discover answers instead of being told what to do.The key is creating real experiences and time to reflect. That’s how learning sticks—and both coach and coachee can learn together.

 

Coaching Through Questions

Explore the power of guiding versus reflection questions in problem-solving coaching. Learn why asking the right questions at the right time helps people think deeper, discover solutions, and own their learning journey – starting before the problem is even selected.

 

Building Coaches

Discover why every person should be no more than one degree away from an effective problem-solving coach. Learn the trade-offs between full-time and part-time coaches, why managers as coaches can be powerful, and how to create systems for developing coaching capability.

 

The GROW Model Standard Work for Coaching Conversations

Learn the GROW model – a simple way to guide coaching conversations. GROW stands for Goals, Reality, Options, and Will. This framework shows you how to lead someone from “What do I want?” to “I’m going to do it” – all while staying flexible enough to adjust as you go.

 

 

 

 

The post Coaching Problem Solving: Building Thinkers, Not Just Fixers appeared first on JFlinch.

Section 3 from the People Solve Problems Book

Beyond Tools: The Mindset That Drives Real Problem-Solving

The best solutions don’t come from the tools you have—they come from the way you think, act, and lead.

Great problem-solvers don’t just follow processes—they take ownership, collaborate, and learn deliberately. This series from Section 3 of People Solve Problems, shifts the focus from tools to behaviors, showing why creativity, trust, and initiative matter more than capital or rigid frameworks. And we’ll explore the human elements that make problem-solving truly effective.

Watch the YouTube series here

Behavior Over Tools

Discover why behaviors matter more than tools in problem-solving success. Learn how focusing on tools alone leads to failure modes like malicious compliance and unthinking problem-solving, and why true improvement comes from learning through action, not templates.

 

Collaborate 

Why solving problems alone usually backfires. When you bring people in early, you spot issues before they become disasters. The real enemy isn’t your coworkers—it’s wasted time and effort. This video shows how working together from the start leads to solutions that actually work.

 

 

Creativity Over Capital 

Smart beats expensive. Creative solutions keep getting better over time, but throwing money at problems eventually runs out. This video shows you how to come up with creative fixes, test them quickly, and pick the ones that actually work.

 

 

Initiative and Ownership

Learn why problems don’t solve themselves – people must decide to solve them. Discover how prioritizing problem-solving time and focusing on finishing rather than starting creates lasting change. Find out why “find a problem, fix a problem” should be your standard.

 

Learn Deliberately

The best problem-solvers don’t rush to answers—they take time to understand what’s really going on. There’s a big difference between pretending you know everything and actually learning. This video explains why slowing down to observe and understand problems saves you time in the long run.

 

Pursue the Ideal State

Explore how pursuing perfection helps catch excellence in problem-solving. Learn why having both a ‘what’ and a ‘how’ in your ideal state matters, and discover why viewing solutions as “countermeasures” keeps you moving toward continuous improvement.

 

Transparency, Vulnerability, and Trust

Hidden problems don’t get fixed. When you make issues visible early, your team can actually do something about them. This video shows why “everything’s fine” is usually a red flag, and how being honest about problems—even when it’s uncomfortable—leads to real improvements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post Beyond Tools: The Mindset That Drives Real Problem-Solving appeared first on JFlinch.

J. Chris White, Co-Founder and CEO of scmBLOX, joined host Jamie Flinchbaugh to explore the critical differences between systems thinking and systems dynamics, and how these approaches can transform supply chain management. As a systems dynamics modeler with 30 years of experience covering operations and supply chains, Chris brought deep expertise to this conversation about solving complex business problems.

Chris explained that while many people embrace systems thinking after reading Peter Senge’s “The Fifth Discipline,” they often miss that Senge was actually a systems dynamicist trained by Jay Forrester, who created systems dynamics. According to Chris, systems thinking provides valuable guidance, but when it comes to actually solving problems, you need the rigor of systems dynamics modeling and simulation. He described systems thinking as appreciating the use of data in decision making, while systems dynamics is doing all the math to generate that data.

The conversation revealed how he views systems dynamics as another tool in the problem-solving toolbox. He emphasized that it works best for larger, interconnected problems where you need to see the whole system view. He explained that systems are collections of parts that are interrelated and interconnected, all working together to achieve a goal. As systems become more complex, the relationships between parts begin to dominate, which is where systems dynamics shines.

When discussing supply chain management specifically, Chris highlighted how traditional “end-to-end” approaches are actually quite limited. Most companies only track orders from their immediate suppliers to customer delivery, but he pointed out that COVID-19 revealed how interconnected supply chains really are. The disruptions, bullwhip effects, and shortages that dominated news cycles showed that problems happening several tiers upstream can significantly impact your business.

Chris used a tree analogy to illustrate this point: there’s little value in optimizing the leaves when you should have been on a different branch strategically to begin with. He emphasized that resilience is more of a system phenomenon than an individual company trait, and that understanding supply chains as systems gives you more power to change the future.

One of the biggest surprises he encounters when working with clients is how little data they actually need to get started. Unlike statistical models that rely heavily on data, systems dynamics focuses on causal connections and structure. He explained that if you know what you’re making and have a bill of materials, your supply chain usually mirrors that structure. This allows companies to begin modeling without perfect visibility into every supplier’s capacity or inventory levels.

Chris emphasized that when companies optimize only their individual parts of the supply chain, they often create unintended effects that come back to hurt them later. What seems beneficial in the short term can actually cause problems in the long term. The goal is to help companies understand how their decisions impact the entire supply chain system, not just their immediate operations.

Throughout the discussion, Chris demonstrated how systems dynamics provides a scientific approach to understanding supply chain vulnerabilities before disruptions occur, whether they’re global events like the Suez Canal blockage or local issues like supplier bankruptcies.

To learn more about Chris White’s work in systems dynamics and supply chain management, visit scmblox.com or connect with him on LinkedIn   

 

 

The post Systems Dynamics: Moving Beyond Supply Chain Optimization with scmBLOX’s J. Chris White appeared first on JFlinch.

Section 2 from the People Solve Problems Book

People-Centered Problem Solving: The Missing Link in Every Organization

Tools don’t solve problems—people do.

The best solutions don’t come from checklists—they come from thinking, learning, and adapting.
This video series covers section 2 of People Solve Problems, where we explore the skills that drive real solutions, from crafting the right problem statements to integrating intuition and testing ideas in the real world. These videos shift the focus from rigid frameworks to the human capabilities that make problem-solving effective.

Watch The YouTube Series Here

Crafting Problem Statements

Discover why creating effective problem statements is perhaps the most crucial skill in problem-solving. Learn how to define problems as gaps, avoid common pitfalls, and why, as John Dewey said, “a problem well defined is a problem half solved.”

 

Studying Cause and Effect

Explore why studying cause and effect is at the heart of effective problem-solving. Learn the difference between discrete and continuous knowledge gaps, and discover why curiosity and direct observation are crucial for closing knowledge gaps before performance gaps.

Integrating Intuition

Explore why intuition is essential in problem-solving, supported by insights from Einstein and Kahneman. Learn how expertise and structured thinking work together – it’s not about choosing between intuition and analysis, but integrating both for better results.

Ideating and Selecting Solutions

The best solutions come from generating many ideas – obvious ones, impossible ones, and everything in between. Invite people who disagree to challenge each other’s thinking. Set your selection criteria upfront, then test your top ideas with quick prototypes. The solution that survives real-world testing is your winner.

 

Test to Learn 

Ask “how do you know?” at every step. Balance confidence with risk by running fast, cheap experiments instead of big bets. Create hypotheses to build knowledge you can use again. Even poker pros lose hands on purpose to test what they think they know. Good testing doesn’t just solve today’s problem – it makes you better at solving future ones too.

 

 

The post People-Centered Problem Solving: The Missing Link in Every Organization appeared first on JFlinch.