Across organizations, we pride ourselves on being problem solvers. In business settings, teams sometimes rush to fix declining sales or launch quick discounts, just as students and faculty may begin writing or gathering data before clarifying the purpose. Yet research shows our biggest barrier isn’t effort or intelligence—it’s misframing the opportunity itself.

How Misframing Distorts Decision‑Making

Decades of research show that even small shifts in how a problem is framed can reverse people’s preferences or lead them toward riskier or more conservative choices (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). When the initial lens is even slightly distorted, teams can overlook critical evidence and pursue the wrong path.

De Smet & Koller (2025) highlight one of the most influential drivers of misframing: the framing effect, a cognitive bias that shapes how we interpret information based on context and how a question is posed.

A well‑known example illustrates this clearly. In the Challenger space shuttle disaster, decision‑makers—concerned about delays—framed the issue as needing proof that it was unsafe to launch rather than asking whether there was evidence the O‑ring seals would hold in freezing temperatures. By focusing on the wrong question, they missed a critical warning (De Smet & Koller, 2025).

Although the stakes are rarely this high, the underlying pattern is common. People naturally gravitate toward familiar assumptions and confirmation biases, especially under deadlines or social‑conformity pressure. And today, AI tools can intensify this tendency by confidently generating answers to poorly framed questions, reinforcing the initial misframing rather than challenging it.

Framing: The Skill That Shapes Every Solution

Problem framing is the process of defining the boundaries, assumptions, and goals of a question before diving into solutions. When done well, framing clarifies what’s at stake, identifies key stakeholders, surfaces hidden assumptions, and opens up more strategic alternatives.

Practical Tools for Better Framing in Academics

Whether you're a student tackling a research project or a faculty member leading a strategic initiative, better framing can elevate your work. To get started, consider four practical approaches:

1. Reframe the Question

Instead of asking “How do we fix X?,” try “What’s really causing X?” or “What would success look like if we didn’t assume X was the problem?”  For example, a university might ask, “How can we increase enrollment in our programs?” A better-framed question might be, “What factors influence student interest in our programs, and how might we adapt our offerings to meet evolving needs?”

2. Zoom Out

Stepping back often reveals hidden dynamics. What systems, incentives, or historical patterns are shaping the issue? Faculty considering curriculum reform in the previous reframe, might zoom out from “How do we update this course?” to “Who can we ask about how our curriculum reflects evolving needs?”

3. Invite Diverse Perspectives

Different stakeholders bring different lenses. Students, faculty, staff, and external partners may all see the problem differently—and that’s a strength. Before launching a new curriculum initiative, host a cross-functional workshop to explore how various groups define the opportunity.

4. Use “What If” Scenarios

Challenging assumptions can unlock creative options. Ask “What if the opposite were true?”  Maybe the team asks “What if we eliminated the course? This can spark creative, lean solutions.

Summing Up Some Approaches

A Harvard Business Review article summarizes many of these strategies in the E5 method, which invites teams to slow down and frame problems before jumping to solutions. At its core, E5 provides a simple structure for examining a problem from multiple angles. It guides teams through five stages:

  • Expand the problem by brainstorming many possible ways to define it.
  • Examine root causes using tools like the iceberg model.
  • Empathize with the people affected to understand their needs.
  • Elevate the issue by looking at organizational or system‑level factors.
  • Envision a better future state and work backward to plan next steps.

Taken together, these stages help students and teams break out of habitual thinking and see the real problem more clearly (Binder & Watkins, 2024). The method is especially useful when groups feel stuck, rushed, or tempted to jump straight to solutions.

Conclusion

The next time you or your team run into a tough problem—whether it’s a business challenge, a research project, or a campus decision—pause before jumping to solutions. Instead of asking, “What’s the answer?,” try asking, “What’s the real question here?”  

Reflection Questions

·      What assumptions am I making about this problem, and how do I know they’re true?

·      How might the framing shift if I zoomed out or considered at least two other stakeholder viewpoints?

·      What evidence would change my mind about what I think the “real” problem is?