The Problem with “Solve or Avoid”
“A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it.”
The line is often attributed to Albert Einstein. It’s concise, memorable—and on the surface, it feels right. Most people have experienced situations where acting too quickly made things worse, and others where stepping back seemed to prevent unnecessary conflict. The quote captures that tension in a way that feels familiar.
But it also points people in the wrong direction.
It frames the decision as a choice between two options: solve the problem or avoid it. In practice, that’s seldom the real decision being made—especially in workplace conflict. The real question isn’t whether to act, but whether you understand the likely consequences of acting now, later, or not at all—and whether you are prepared to adjust if your initial judgment proves wrong.
The Hidden Assumption
The quote rests on assumptions that rarely hold up in real-world situations. It assumes that problems are stable—that what you see now is what you’ll be dealing with if you choose to act. In workplace conflict, that’s rarely true. Issues evolve, information surfaces, and positions shift depending on how and when engagement occurs.
It also assumes that action is always available and equally effective. But timing changes outcomes. The same conversation, held too early, can trigger defensiveness. Held later, it may lead to clarity—or may no longer be necessary at all.
Most importantly, it treats delay as an act of avoidance. That’s the most misleading assumption of all. In practice, what looks like avoidance is often something else entirely: a pause to gather information, an effort to regulate emotion, or a deliberate decision to let a situation develop before stepping in.
None of those are passive—they are choices. Once that becomes clear, the original framing—“solve or avoid”—begins to break down. The real discipline isn’t choosing between action and inaction, but deciding when, whether, and how to engage based on what you know, what you don’t know, and what is likely to happen next.
What Actually Happens in Workplace Conflict
Workplace conflict rarely presents itself as a clean decision point. It emerges through incomplete information, shifting dynamics, and uncertain consequences. You rarely know everything you need to know. Motivations are unclear, and prior conversations may be shaping the situation in ways you can’t yet see. What appears to be a discrete issue is often part of a broader pattern that only becomes visible over time.
At the same time, the situation does not stand still. While you are deciding what to do, others are also interpreting, reacting, and adjusting. A delayed response may be seen as restraint—or as indifference. An immediate response may demonstrate initiative—or trigger defensiveness. The meaning of your action is shaped as much by timing as by content.
This uncertainty of the correct path to take is what makes early action risky. Act too soon, and you may respond to a partial picture or commit to a position that becomes harder to adjust as new information emerges. You may also escalate a situation that might have clarified or resolved itself without direct intervention.
But waiting carries risk as well. Delay can allow misunderstandings to solidify, signal disengagement, or reduce your ability to influence the outcome.
The environment in which decisions are actually made, and actions—whether passive, aggressive, or probing—are taken is complex.
Not a simple choice between solving and avoiding, but a series of judgments made under uncertainty.
If the real decision isn’t whether to solve or avoid, then what are we actually choosing?
Stay Informed
If you’re interested in how these ideas apply in real workplace situations, you can join the RIWYB email list.
The list shares occasional insights, selected examples, and updates grounded in real-world scenarios—not volume-driven messaging.