In today’s world, being “solution-orientated” is a prized trait. Those who raise concerns or point out flaws often risk being labelled as negative or unconstructive. But what if our obsession with solutions is stopping us from truly solving anything?
A few years ago, while facilitating a workshop, I remember urging participants to adopt a solution-orientated mindset. During the session, I recall shutting down an individual who seemed overly critical, by emphasising the need for tangible solutions rather than dwelling on problems. After the session, a colleague gently pulled me aside. “People should feel safe to express what’s wrong,” he said. “They don’t always have to come with a solution.” His subtle critique made me pause and reflect.
That moment stayed with me. There is indeed an over-glorification of solution-driven thinking in many organisations and in our society at large. We tend to see problem-spotters as roadblocks and label them “troublemakers,” while those who offer ideas, however superficial, are celebrated. Somewhere along the way, we stopped valuing the slow, uncomfortable work of truly understanding what’s wrong.
Most of the time we fail to distinguish between critical thinking and negativity. Most of us are often eager to find solutions without properly understanding the problem. We seem to forget that knowing and accepting what is wrong is often a crucial starting point in the quest for what is right.
It is usually easier to identify what is wrong than to instantly know what is right. Accepting this reality, however, is not always easy. To confront what's wrong is to confront our failures, our vulnerabilities, and sometimes even our complicity. It may demand asking tough questions about what didn’t work, who is responsible, and what needs to change – all of which can be uncomfortable.
So, we avoid the discomfort. We leap toward solutions. We look for positivity as a way to escape accountability. But this avoidance only pushes the real problems further underground.
Inverse Thinking: from philosophy to practical strategy
This is where the concept of inverse thinking becomes powerful. Instead of directly pursuing the right answer, inverse thinking invites us to understand what is wrong, eliminate it, and allow clarity to emerge.The idea is not new. In fact, it’s ancient. It is deeply ingrained in both Oriental and Occidental philosophies.
In ancient Greece, Stoic philosophers like Marcus Aurelius and Seneca practiced premeditatio malorum -which translates to premeditation of evils. They imagined what could go wrong in life, not out of pessimism, but to avoid or minimise the effects. This type of analysis bears a striking resemblance to contemporary risk assessment conducted by many organisations.
Moreover, the concept of inverse thinking resonates with the profound wisdom embedded in Vedic philosophy, particularly the principle of ‘Neti Neti,’ meaning ‘not this, not this.’ Instead of defining ultimate truth by what it is, this approach encourages seekers to strip away what it is not. Through a process of elimination, truth becomes clearer. It's the same strategy many of us use in multiple-choice exams: we may not know the right answer, but we can usually rule out the wrong ones—and that gets us closer.
Even the Buddha, in his path to enlightenment, didn’t start by talking about joy or salvation. He began with suffering. The Four Noble Truths identify the existence of suffering, its causes, and the way to eliminate those causes. Only then does the path toward liberation emerge. This is inverse thinking in action: by deeply understanding and eliminating what causes pain, we move toward peace.
Inverse thinking isn’t just philosophical - it has practical roots too. In the 19th century, German mathematician Carl Gustav Jacob Jacobi introduced the mathematical concept of inverse equations, where the idea was to solve the problems by inverting them. He believed that many complex problems became easier when approached backward. He would write down the opposite of the problem he was trying to solve and found that the solutions often came to him more easily.
Charlie Munger, an American investor and business partner of Warren Buffett, successfully put this idea into practice in the contemporary business world. Munger famously stated, “All I want to know is where I’m going to die, so I’ll never go there.” His point? Success often comes not from doing everything right but from avoiding the biggest mistakes.
Smart enough not to be stupid
The important question hence is whether the pursuit of what is right – “success” – is more beneficial than the deliberate avoidance of what is wrong – “failures”. The prevailing cultural inclination towards constant positivity and solution-centric thinking means talking about failure and focusing on avoiding mistakes remains an underappreciated way to improve. There is pressure to always look forward, to solve fast, and to show confidence. But sometimes, it’s smarter to pause – and look carefully at what’s wrong.
Despite such pressure, while making the right choice, let us admit that most of us unfortunately are not geniuses, but most of us are smart enough to avoid stupidity. So maybe our goal shouldn’t be to always chase brilliance but to steer clear of obvious failure. In other words:don’t try too hard to be a genius; just try not to be stupid.
