Strategic Problem Framing is the ability to identify, structure, and articulate complex challenges in a way that enables effective solution development. According to the Harvard Business Review, "How you frame a problem shapes how you solve it," highlighting that this skill involves not just identifying issues but redefining them in ways that reveal new possibilities and pathways forward.

In today's rapidly changing business environment, Strategic Problem Framing is essential across virtually all professional roles. When candidates demonstrate this competency, they show they can move beyond addressing symptoms to tackling root causes, challenge assumptions that limit innovation, and consider multiple stakeholder perspectives. Strategic Problem Framing encompasses several dimensions: analytical thinking to deconstruct complex situations; systems thinking to understand interconnections; reframing capabilities to see problems from fresh angles; and the ability to articulate problems in a way that engages others in the solution process.

When evaluating candidates for Strategic Problem Framing, look beyond whether they solved past problems and focus on how they approached defining those problems in the first place. The best candidates will demonstrate they understand that the initial definition of a problem often constrains or enables possible solutions. Through behavioral interview questions, you can assess whether candidates instinctively question assumptions, consider diverse perspectives, and structure ambiguous situations in ways that lead to breakthrough insights.

Interview Questions

Tell me about a time when you had to redefine a problem that others were struggling to solve.

Areas to Cover:

• The original way the problem was framed
• Why the initial framing wasn't leading to effective solutions
• The process the candidate used to reexamine the problem
• How they identified the need to reframe the issue
• The new perspective or definition they brought to the situation
• How the reframing changed the approach to solutions
• The outcome and what they learned from the experience

Follow-Up Questions:

• What signals indicated to you that the problem needed to be reframed?
• How did you convince others to accept your new definition of the problem?
• What specific tools or methods did you use to analyze the problem differently?
• Looking back, were there other ways you could have framed the problem?

Describe a situation where you identified a problem that others hadn't yet recognized.

Areas to Cover:

• What observations or data led them to identify the issue
• How they initially determined it was a significant problem worth addressing
• The process of defining and articulating the problem
• How they validated their understanding of the problem
• The reception from others when they raised the issue
• Steps taken to build agreement around the problem definition
• How the early identification impacted the organization

Follow-Up Questions:

• What specifically made you notice this issue when others had missed it?
• How did you differentiate between a symptom and the root problem?
• What resistance did you face when bringing attention to this problem?
• How did you prioritize this problem against other competing issues?

Share an example of a complex problem you broke down into more manageable components.

Areas to Cover:

• The nature and scope of the complex problem
• The analytical process used to deconstruct the problem
• How they determined which components were most critical
• The framework or structure they created to organize the problem
• How breaking down the problem led to new insights
• The way they communicated this breakdown to others
• How this approach affected the ultimate resolution

Follow-Up Questions:

• What specific techniques did you use to analyze the different components?
• How did you determine which aspects of the problem to tackle first?
• Were there components that proved more challenging to define than others?
• How did breaking down the problem change your or others' understanding of it?

Tell me about a time when you had to frame a problem differently for different stakeholders.

Areas to Cover:

• The problem that needed to be communicated
• The different stakeholders involved and their varied perspectives
• How they identified the concerns and priorities of each stakeholder group
• The different ways they framed the same core issue
• How they ensured consistency despite different framings
• The impact of these tailored communications on stakeholder buy-in
• What they learned about effective problem communication

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you determine what aspects of the problem would resonate most with each group?
• What challenges did you face in maintaining a consistent core message?
• How did you manage conflicts between different stakeholders' perceptions?
• What feedback did you receive about your communication approach?

Describe a situation where your initial definition of a problem turned out to be incorrect.

Areas to Cover:

• The initial way they framed the problem
• What assumptions underpinned their original perspective
• How they came to realize their framing was flawed
• The process of reconsidering and redefining the problem
• How they communicated the shift in understanding to others
• The impact of the revised problem definition
• Lessons learned about approaching problem definition

Follow-Up Questions:

• What signals or feedback helped you recognize your initial framing was off?
• How did you feel when you realized you needed to reconsider your approach?
• What specific assumptions proved to be incorrect in your initial framing?
• How has this experience changed how you approach defining problems now?

Tell me about a time when you helped a team move from debating solutions to better defining the actual problem.

Areas to Cover:

• The context and the solutions being debated
• Signs that indicated the team was focused on solutions prematurely
• How they redirected the conversation to problem definition
• Techniques used to build a shared understanding of the problem
• How the team's perspective shifted
• The impact on the quality of solutions generated
• Lessons about facilitating effective problem framing

Follow-Up Questions:

• What specifically did you say or do to shift the team's focus?
• What resistance did you encounter and how did you address it?
• How did you know when the team had a sufficiently robust problem definition?
• How did the final solution differ from the initial solutions being discussed?

Share an example of when you used data or research to reframe a problem in a way that led to better solutions.

Areas to Cover:

• The initial understanding of the problem
• What prompted them to seek additional data
• The research or data collection process they undertook
• Key insights gained from the data
• How these insights changed the problem definition
• The new solutions that emerged from the reframed problem
• The impact of this data-informed approach

Follow-Up Questions:

• What specific data points or patterns led to your new understanding?
• Were there any contradictions in the data you had to reconcile?
• How did you determine what data would be relevant to collect?
• What limitations or gaps remained in your data-informed problem framing?

Describe a time when you had to frame an ambiguous or ill-defined situation into a clear problem statement.

Areas to Cover:

• The nature of the ambiguity they faced
• Their process for making sense of the unclear situation
• How they determined what information was relevant
• The structure or framework they applied to create clarity
• How they articulated the problem statement
• The reception to their framing by others
• How this clear definition facilitated progress

Follow-Up Questions:

• What was the most challenging aspect of bringing clarity to this situation?
• What techniques or tools did you use to structure the ambiguity?
• How did you decide what to include and exclude in your problem statement?
• In hindsight, were there aspects of the situation you overlooked in your framing?

Tell me about a time when you challenged an established way of thinking about a recurring problem.

Areas to Cover:

• The recurring problem and its established framing
• What prompted them to question the conventional thinking
• How they developed an alternative perspective
• The process of analyzing the problem differently
• How they introduced their new framing to others
• Resistance encountered and how they addressed it
• The impact of the new perspective on addressing the problem

Follow-Up Questions:

• What specific aspects of the conventional framing did you find limiting?
• How did you build credibility for your alternative perspective?
• What risks did you see in challenging the established thinking?
• Were there elements of the traditional approach you preserved in your new framing?

Share an example of when you had to frame a problem that involved competing priorities or trade-offs.

Areas to Cover:

• The nature of the competing priorities involved
• How they identified and articulated the trade-offs
• Their process for weighing different factors
• How they structured the problem to make the trade-offs explicit
• The way they communicated these complexities to stakeholders
• How the problem framing helped navigate the competing interests
• The ultimate decision-making process and outcomes

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you determine which priorities were most important to consider?
• What methods did you use to evaluate potential trade-offs?
• How did you handle stakeholders who had strong preferences for one priority?
• What principles guided your approach to framing this problem with competing interests?

Describe a situation where you transformed a seemingly technical problem into a more strategic one (or vice versa).

Areas to Cover:

• The original framing of the problem
• Why they recognized a need to shift the problem level
• The process of redefining the problem's scope or nature
• How they connected technical details to strategic implications (or vice versa)
• How others responded to this transformation
• The impact on solution development and implementation
• What they learned about appropriate problem framing

Follow-Up Questions:

• What signals indicated that the problem needed to be reframed at a different level?
• How did you help others see the connection between technical and strategic aspects?
• What challenges did you face in bridging these different perspectives?
• How did this experience change your approach to similar situations?

Tell me about a time when you identified a problem that was actually a symptom of a deeper issue.

Areas to Cover:

• The initial problem that was presented or observed
• The process of investigating beyond the apparent issue
• How they determined that a deeper issue existed
• The techniques used to identify the root cause
• How they reframed the problem to address the underlying issue
• The challenges in shifting focus to the real problem
• The outcome of addressing the root cause rather than the symptom

Follow-Up Questions:

• What specifically made you suspect there was a deeper issue at play?
• How did you investigate to uncover the underlying problem?
• What resistance did you encounter when trying to shift focus to the root cause?
• How did addressing the root issue affect the symptom that was initially identified?

Share an example of when you had to frame a problem differently because of resource constraints or other limitations.

Areas to Cover:

• The initial problem and ideal approach
• The nature of the constraints or limitations faced
• How they reassessed the problem in light of these constraints
• The process of redefining what was possible and necessary
• Their approach to creative problem framing within limitations
• How this reframing helped navigate the constraints
• The ultimate outcome and lessons learned

Follow-Up Questions:

• How did you determine which aspects of the problem were most critical to preserve?
• What creative approaches did you consider to work within the constraints?
• How did you communicate the revised problem framing to stakeholders?
• What trade-offs did you have to make in your problem definition?

Describe a time when you used a systematic framework or methodology to define a complex problem.

Areas to Cover:

• The nature of the complex problem they faced
• The framework or methodology they selected
• Why they chose that particular approach
• How they applied the framework to their specific situation
• Adaptations they made to the framework if any
• How the framework helped structure their thinking
• The impact on the quality of the problem definition

Follow-Up Questions:

• What other frameworks did you consider, and why did you select this one?
• What were the strengths and limitations of the framework for this situation?
• How did you adapt the framework to fit your specific context?
• How did using this structured approach compare to more intuitive approaches you've used?

Tell me about a time when you had to reframe a problem because the original approach wasn't working.

Areas to Cover:

• The original problem framing and approach
• Indicators that showed the original approach wasn't effective
• The process of reassessing and redefining the problem
• How they diagnosed what was wrong with the initial framing
• The new perspective they developed
• How they implemented and communicated the shift
• The outcome after reframing the problem

Follow-Up Questions:

• How long did you persist with the original approach before deciding to reframe?
• What specific signs indicated that the problem needed to be redefined?
• How did you maintain team morale and momentum during this pivot?
• What did you learn about your initial problem-framing process?

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Strategic Problem Framing so important in the interview process?

Strategic Problem Framing reveals how candidates think, not just what they know or have done. The way someone frames a problem often determines whether they'll find an effective solution. This competency shows whether a candidate can see beyond symptoms to root causes, consider multiple perspectives, and structure ambiguous situations in ways that lead to breakthrough insights. In today's complex business environment, the ability to correctly define problems is often more valuable than having immediate answers.

How can I distinguish between candidates who are genuinely skilled at Strategic Problem Framing versus those who are just good at describing solutions?

Focus on the process rather than outcomes. Ask candidates to walk you through their exact thinking process when they first encountered a problem. Listen for mentions of exploring alternative definitions, questioning assumptions, seeking diverse perspectives, and iterating on their understanding before pursuing solutions. A candidate with strong problem framing skills will spend significant time discussing how they defined and structured the problem, not just jumping to how they solved it.

How many of these questions should I include in a single interview?

For most roles, select 3-4 of these questions for a one-hour interview. This allows time for the candidate to provide detailed responses and for you to ask thorough follow-up questions. Quality of exploration is more important than quantity of questions. Choose questions that are most relevant to the specific challenges of the role you're hiring for.

How should I interpret a candidate who struggles with some of these questions?

Consider the role level and required experience. Entry-level candidates might have fewer examples of formal problem framing but should still demonstrate curiosity and analytical thinking. Also consider whether the candidate shows self-awareness about their problem-framing approach and eagerness to improve it. Sometimes a thoughtful reflection on a partial success or failure reveals more about a candidate's potential than a perfectly polished success story.

Should I adapt these questions for technical versus non-technical roles?

Yes, while the core competency remains the same, you might emphasize different aspects. For technical roles, focus more on questions that reveal analytical decomposition of complex problems and data-informed reframing. For leadership roles, emphasize questions about stakeholder perspectives, strategic reframing, and guiding teams through problem definition. You can also modify the questions to include domain-specific terminology relevant to your industry or function.

Interested in a full interview guide with Strategic Problem Framing as a key trait? Sign up for Yardstick and build it for free.