There are certain phrases that circulate in the workplace and end up becoming implicit management rules. Among them is the famous “if you come with a problem, come with a solution“, which aims to cut short unnecessary complaints and promote a certain positivity and culture of action
For a long time, I believed in this and wholeheartedly embraced it. I found this rule to be healthy because it encouraged everyone to take responsibility and filtered out overly negative minded individuals. However, experience has taught me that it mainly instills a dangerous reflex, namely silence and fear of speaking up. And a business where problems are no longer reported is a business that is exposed to avoidable disasters.
In fact, this idea had been on my mind for a while, and last week I saw a video of a recruiter who spoke very emphatically about how badly she thought of people who had a knack for seeing problems and only wanted people who brought solutions. Not only did I dislike the tone, but it also reminded me of how toxic this type of rule can be, hence this article.
In short:
- The manager’s role is to transform individual perceptions into collective intelligence, not to punish bad news.
- Value can be found in information deemed useless, because an organization is built on what is shared.
- Prohibiting discussion of a problem without a solution promotes a culture of denial rather than a culture of action.
- Businesses that only listen to constructive messages lose their clarity and ability to anticipate.
- Recognizing the importance of messengers and alerts, even if incomplete, is an advantage for the organization.
Hunting down negative attitudes is, in principle, a healthy thing to do
The value of this principle is fairly obvious at first glance. In organizations where people are already overwhelmed with tasks, meetings, and emergencies, it is reasonable to expect that if someone points out a problem, they should also suggest a solution. This prevents managers from being inundated with complaints, forces everyone to think critically before seeking the attention of others, and prevents a negative atmosphere from developing.
We must also recognize that we have all dealt with colleagues who are perfectly capable of listing what is not working, but who never offer any suggestions. With such people, this rule can serve as a safeguard because it gives the impression that the group will be protected from minds that are considered negative or unproductive.
But this is a misleading illusion. By setting the bar high, so to speak, by demanding that people be proactive, we are turning a principle of accountability into a filter that prevents information from circulating, and the price paid for avoiding a few complaints is sometimes much higher than we imagine.
Positivism is a form of denial
Inevitably, a mechanism of self-censorship sets in, and those who spot a problem hesitate to report it when they don’t know how to fix it. Those who feel that a process is flawed and that we are sitting on a time bomb remain silent because they don’t want to be seen as the complainer in the group.
But just because we keep quiet about a problem doesn’t mean it goes away. On the contrary, weak signals that are ignored often end up turning into major problems. The worst part is that when the bomb finally explodes, we realize that many people knew about it but no one ever dared to say anything.
Silence is not a sign of maturity or positivity, but rather a symptom of a culture where denial is institutionalized, where people prefer to say nothing rather than risk raising an issue without having any idea how to solve it. This is what makes certain crises so brutal, because they are not discovered but experienced when the time bomb finally explodes.
How Boeing nearly died because of its culture
The Boeing case is emblematic of the problems that such a culture can cause. In the years leading up to the 737 MAX disasters, the company changed its culture and the priority given to safety and engineering gave way to an obsession with profitability (Boeing: a culture and a slogan can kill a business).
Many engineers had noticed the flaws but did not dare to speak up. The comparison ends there, because the problem was not the lack of a solution but simply the fear and difficulty of speaking up, but the case still shows what happens when people don’t dare to talk about what’s wrong.
The consequences are well known: two fatal accidents, billions lost, and a lasting stain on the company’s reputation. This tragedy was not the result of technical shortcomings, but of a fear of speaking up (Why employee silence is management’s biggest failure).
An alert without a solution is better than no alert at all
In a business, everyone sees different things. A technician hears an unusual noise, a sales representative notices a recurring objection from customers, an employee realizes that deadlines are becoming untenable. None of them necessarily has the skills or authority to solve the problem, but each has a piece of the puzzle.
But these fragments of reality are essential. While they may not constitute solutions, they do signal problems that deserve to be investigated. By keeping them quiet, we deprive the organization of its sensors instead of feeding collective vigilance.
We must accept that the solution is not always found in the same place as the problem. Those who perceive the flaw do not always have the means to remedy it, but their role is not to solve the problem, just to alert others to it. It is this alert, sometimes imperfect and incomplete, that allows others to mobilize the right skills to find a solution.
The role of management: capturing and transforming
It is the role of management to transform these alerts into useful information, not by demanding ready-made solutions, but by listening sympathetically to what is being reported, even when it is confusing. The important thing is not that each problem comes with its own instructions, but that it is reported.
But this often requires a change in attitude. It is no longer a question of sorting between “constructive” and “negative” feedback, but of understanding that even a raw alert can be the beginning of progress. As Deming pointed out in his day, improvement comes first and foremost from the ability to bring problems to light, not from the illusion that they will resolve themselves, and this requires, above all, psychological safety (Why Technical Solutions Fail Without People: Reflections from 30 Years in Operations).
A manager is not a judge who punishes bad news, but a catalyst who transforms individual perception into collective intelligence. They give value to what others would consider useless, because they know that an organization is always built on what is shared, not on what is left unsaid.
Bottom Line
It is often believed that demanding that problems not be discussed if there is no solution is a way to build a culture of action, but in reality, it is creating a culture of denial. Businesses that only want to hear constructive feedback are depriving themselves of their sensors and losing the clarity that allows them to avoid problems.
Conversely, those that accept that some employees are merely messengers have a major advantage. They accept that problems are not always presented in a comprehensive manner with a ready-made solution and understand that the alert itself is already valuable.
To answer your questions
Because it encourages silence. By systematically imposing a solution, it discourages those who see a problem but don’t have the answer. Information no longer circulates, weak signals are ignored, and the business deprives itself of its ability to anticipate.
It limits complaints and forces everyone to think twice before approaching a manager. This may seem positive in busy environments. But this immediate gain comes at a high price: useful alerts disappear and crises erupt because they were not reported in time.
Because a problem doesn’t just disappear. It gets worse. The example of Boeing shows this: engineers had seen the flaws, but didn’t dare speak up. The result: two human tragedies, billions lost, and a reputation destroyed.
Because it fuels collective vigilance. Even if incomplete, an alert draws attention to a risk and mobilizes the right skills. Ignoring these signals is tantamount to depriving the business of its essential sensors.
It must welcome alerts, even raw ones, and transform them into collective intelligence. Its role is not to punish bad news, but to create a climate of psychological safety where everyone dares to share what they perceive.
Image credit: Image generated by artificial intelligence via ChatGPT (OpenAI)
