Administrators—whether C-suite executives such as CEOs, COOs, CIOs, and CFOs; leaders in K-12 or higher education; or nonprofit chairpersons, presidents, and vice presidents—often face complex challenges that require swift, effective, and long-lasting solutions. Successfully addressing these challenges can be broken down into three essential phases: Listening, Evaluation, and Implementation. These steps are particularly crucial for those handling moderate- to high-level issues, where the decisions made can have significant impacts on the organization.

Listening, Evaluation, and Implementation each represent a stage in the process of problem-solving and decision-making. Listening involves gathering information, perceiving the concerns of stakeholders and identifying the root causes of an issue [1]. Evaluation requires analyzing the data, weighing different options, and considering both short- and long-term consequences [2]. Implementation is the act of carrying out the chosen solution, ensuring it is communicated effectively, and monitoring progress to make adjustments when necessary [3][4]. Together, these phases form a practical framework that can guide administrators toward effective and sustainable leadership decisions.

Listening (or are we pretending?)

The first step in the problem-solving process is listening. This phase involves understanding the problem in depth, gathering input from relevant stakeholders, and identifying the root causes. Listening is not just about hearing words—it requires administrators to perceive the emotions, concerns, and motivations behind them. Leaders must “seek first to understand, then to be understood” [1].

For instance, if an administrator is managing a conflict between team members, merely addressing surface-level disagreements may not resolve the underlying tension. By actively listening, the administrator can uncover deeper issues such as misunderstandings, unmet expectations, or personal grievances, which are crucial for developing a sustainable solution.

At the same time, administrators should recognize that speculation, assumptions, and gossip without knowing the full picture can damage an institution. Transparency and open communication are vital. Sincerity and authenticity also matter—leaders must show genuine concern, ensuring people never feel their issues are being brushed aside. In the listening phase, administrators should remain cautious to prevent misunderstandings during conversations. At times—whether intentional or not—people may extract specific words or phrases, strip them of their original context, and circulate them in ways that distort the intended message. Such misrepresentation can damage not only an individual’s career and reputation but also the credibility of the entire organization.

To guard against this, leaders must communicate with precision and foresight, choosing their words carefully and avoiding statements that could be easily misconstrued.

Evaluation (remember, there could be more than one correct answer or solution!)

Following the listening phase, the next step is Evaluation, which requires a careful analysis of the information gathered. The administrator must weigh different perspectives, explore various solutions and anticipate the potential outcomes of each option. This aligns with the design stage of decision-making [2]. Leaders must avoid quick fixes that merely provide temporary relief but fail to address the root causes.

For example, if the problem is low employee morale, offering a one-time bonus might provide temporary relief but would not address underlying causes such as a lack of career development opportunities, belonging issues, or poor work-life balance. During evaluation, administrators should also be open to different theories and approaches, recognizing that human-related issues often involve multiple viewpoints. The goal is to identify the most effective strategy that aligns with the organization’s goals and values.

Trust and credibility are essential in this stage. These are not built overnight but develop gradually, much like establishing financial credit. Past sincerity and close relationships form the foundation for successful persuasion when making difficult decisions. Empathy—thinking from the perspective of stakeholders—is also key to understanding their concerns and preventing misunderstandings.

Implementation (how is your level of sincerity and commitment to follow the plan?)

The final step is implementation, which involves putting the chosen solution into action through a well-structured plan. Change is often met with resistance, making leadership communication critical. This reflects the importance of creating momentum through clear communication and urgency [3], as well as solidifying change for long-term success [4].

Implementation should also include mechanisms for monitoring progress and making necessary adjustments. No plan is perfect, and flexibility is essential to addressing unforeseen obstacles. For example, if an administrator introduces a new workflow to improve efficiency, they should monitor its impact on productivity and employee satisfaction, making modifications if the system does not yield the expected results. In practice, implementation also means managing diverse personalities and talents.

Administrators often work with highly capable individuals who have distinct characters. Balancing team chemistry and channeling energy toward progress is the leader’s responsibility. Those who consistently undermine teamwork must be addressed, while talented individuals should be entrusted with new responsibilities. Delegation requires both courage and encouragement: leaders must give capable people the chance to take on new tasks, allow room for mistakes, and support their growth. Effective delegation thus becomes not only a tool for efficiency but also for building confidence and resilience across the team.

An administrator should realize that there may be wide gray areas of solutions in many cases, and depending on the path chosen, it is important to remain consistent, closely follow up on progress based on the issue’s severity, and be ready to make adjustments if needed. Once a decision is made—even if it may not seem the best at that moment—it is often wiser to stick with it rather than constantly changing course.

A contemporary example: A CEO confronting personnel issues

At a mid-sized technology company, the CEO noticed that team productivity was declining, even though the company was growing and resources were sufficient. Exit interviews revealed that high-performing employees were leaving because of toxic behavior from a few long-serving staff members who held informal influence within the organization. Their negative attitudes were undermining morale and discouraging new hires from fully integrating into the company culture.

Rather than taking immediate punitive action, the CEO began with a listening phase. He held confidential conversations with both departing employees and current staff to understand the situation more deeply. This revealed that the problem extended beyond individual personalities: employees felt that poor behavior was tolerated without accountability, creating resentment across the workforce.

After gathering information, the CEO evaluated the root cause. He realized the issue was not only about a few problematic individuals but also about a culture that lacked clear behavioral standards and consistent enforcement. Simply firing the employees might have offered a short-term remedy but would not address the deeper cultural problem. He considered several options and concluded that change required both accountability and a renewed culture of respect. The implementation phase involved rolling out a “Respect and Responsibility” workplace policy, reinforced through workshops and company-wide communication. The problematic employees were given coaching and an opportunity to adjust, but continued toxic behavior was no longer tolerated. Within six months, surveys showed improved morale, reduced turnover, and higher productivity.

This example illustrates how a leader who listens carefully, evaluates wisely, and implements decisively can transform a toxic environment into one of accountability and renewed trust.

Prophetic leadership and the Ji‘ranah incident: A timeless model for conflict resolution

Contemporary leaders must beware of interim measures that seem convenient but fail to resolve deeper problems. When we look back at world history, prophetic approaches stand in a category of their own. Prophets embodied the highest standard of leadership, guided directly by God, and exemplified wisdom that humanity can only aspire to reach. The Ji‘ranah incident provides a vivid case study of this truth. More than fourteen centuries ago, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) resolved a highly complex conflict with remarkable speed, empathy, and foresight. His solution was not only effective in the moment but has continued to inspire reflection on leadership and human relations into our modern era.

Following the conquest of Mecca, the Prophet and the Muslim army faced the tribes of Hawazin and Thaqif at the Battle of Hunayn in 630 CE. The Muslims achieved a decisive victory, capturing a vast amount of booty. According to Arab custom, the spoils were to be distributed among the participants, and the Prophet personally oversaw this sensitive process. In a carefully calculated move, he allocated a significant share of the spoils to newly converted Meccan leaders—Quraysh nobles and other influential figures. His goal was not favoritism but diplomacy: strengthening new believers, securing their allegiance, and maintaining peace among influential recent converts. While strategically wise, this distribution stirred unease among the Ansar, the residents of Medina who had supported him from the very beginning and fought bravely at Hunayn. Some murmured among themselves: “The Messenger has found his people again and forgotten us.”

Listening before acting

When Sa’d b. Ubada, the leader of the Ansar, conveyed their feelings to the Prophet, the Prophet asked him directly for his own opinion. Sa’d replied with humility: “I am but one of my people.” In other words, he stood in solidarity with his community rather than elevating his personal view.

The Prophet recognized that the Ansar’s frustration was not about material wealth but about belonging, loyalty, and appreciation. He responded not with dismissal but with deep empathy.

A speech that healed hearts

The Prophet gathered the Ansar privately, ensuring no one was left behind and that no Muslims who had migrated from Mecca were present. He delivered a heartfelt address, reminding them of how God had guided, enriched, and united them through his mission. Then he reframed the entire situation, shifting their perspective from worldly gain to spiritual honor:

“While others take worldly possessions, would you not be pleased to take the Messenger of God as your share? Verily, if all people went one way and the Ansar went the other, I would go with the Ansar. O God, have mercy on the Ansar, their children, and their descendants.”

Tears filled the eyes of the Ansar, and they responded unanimously: “We are pleased with the Messenger of God as our portion and our fortune.” In that moment, a potential rift was transformed into deeper unity, gratitude, and trust.

Lessons for today

The Ji‘ranah incident remains a timeless model of conflict resolution. By listening attentively, affirming dignity, and reframing the issue in higher moral terms, the Prophet turned disappointment into renewed commitment. His approach shows that true leadership is not merely about distributing resources but about addressing the human need for recognition, belonging, and purpose.

For today’s leaders, the lesson is clear: empathy and wisdom are not soft skills—they are the foundations of lasting unity.

Conclusion

Effective problem-solving for administrators follows a structured approach beginning with active listening, progressing to careful evaluation, and concluding with strategic implementation. The CEO’s handling of workplace toxicity and the Prophet’s resolution of

the Ji‘ranah incident both highlight how these three steps, when practiced with sincerity and wisdom, can transform potential crises into opportunities for strengthening relationships.

By mastering these steps, leaders can effectively address complex challenges, leading to more sustainable outcomes for their organizations. Responsible administrators should remain patient, yet mindful that unnecessary delays may create additional strain and inefficiencies. Understanding and applying these principles will enhance their problem-solving capabilities, ensuring a more effective and adaptable leadership approach.

References

• Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. Free Press.
• Simon, H. A. (1977). The New Science of Management Decision. Prentice Hall.
• Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Lewin, K. (1947). “Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change.” Human Relations, 1(5), 5–41.
• Ibn Hisham, As-Sirah an-Nabawiyyah.
• Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari. Book 64, Hadith 359–366
• Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim.
• Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad Ahmad.

In a study conducted by social psychologists Tversky and Kahneman, people were asked to guess the percentage of African nations that were members of the United Nations. Two groups were first asked to estimate whether this number was lower or higher than a threshold: the first group was asked whether it is more or less than 45 percent and the second group was asked whether it is more or less than 65 percent. Then both groups were asked to give their estimates of the actual percentage. The researchers demonstrated that the group that was given the lower threshold estimated a lower value for the actual percentage of African nations that are members of the United Nations. The group that was given the higher threshold estimated a higher percentage. The pattern has held in other experiments for a wide variety of different subjects of estimation. A bias in the estimation of African members of the United Nations may not sound like a big deal, but how about decisions that affect people’s lives seriously?

Consider sentencing in court trials. Social psychologist Mussweiler and colleagues asked trial judges with more than 15 years of experience to consider sentencing demands made by non-experts in a legal crime case before issuing a final sentence. The two sentencing demands were 34 months and 12 months. The judges, despite their experience and despite the fact that the crime was the same, were influenced by the demands. Judges who considered the high demand of 34 months prior to their decision gave final sentences that were almost 8 months longer than judges who considered a low demand of 12 months initially. If prior exposure to a piece of information can make a difference as much as 8 more months in prison, then we ought to know what is going on. The examples above illustrate a psychological heuristic known as “anchoring and adjustment.” The heuristic suggests that when faced with a decision-making or estimation situation, people start with an anchor, or a reference point, and make adjustments to it to reach their final estimate. The anchor serves as a first approximation and then the person makes adjustments to it to reach a final estimate or decision. Why does the human mind utilize this heuristic? The answer is simple—we do not always have a whole lot of information to reach an accurate estimate or best decision.

Therefore, the mind sometimes needs shortcuts, especially under pressing circumstances. To understand this process, let’s have a look at the limitations of human cognition. Models of human cognition Cognitive psychologists and sociologists have worked to develop models of human social cognition. These models emphasize four aspects of our social cognition, which is the way we perceive others. The first is the role of prior knowledge versus information immediately available. For example, when we see a policeman directing the traffic, we use our prior knowledge in our perception. We may assume that he is carrying a gun and he has communications equipment to talk with his station. We deduce these features from our prior knowledge about the traffic police, even if we may not be in a position to observe that particular policeman’s gun or communications device. Relying on prior information in our judgments is called “top-down” processing as opposed to “bottom-up” or data-driven processing. Typically, relying on top-down processing, such as relying on stereotypes, requires fewer processing resources.

The second aspect is the limitation of our cognitive processing capacity. The human cognitive system is modeled to consist of our sensory organs, a sensory register (memory) that temporarily stores our perceptions of external stimuli, a short-term memory, a long-term memory, attention resources and executive control processes. When we receive information in the form of audio-visual or other sensory stimuli, they are processed by our cognitive system and transferred to our short-term memory. Through a process of encoding and categorization, the information is organized and stored in the long-term memory. A part of the long-term memory is “active” or readily accessible. Our further use of information in our long-term memory activates the information, and the lack of use deactivates it, making it less readily accessible. Our behavioral response results from our processing of information. According to this information-processing model of human cognition, the amount of information that can be processed by our cognitive system is restricted in terms of storage, flow and inference (Huitt, 2003).

The third aspect is the amount of cognitive processing that is determined by capacity (amount of free resources) and motivation. Factors such as interest, importance, and relevance determine the motivation to allocate more cognitive resources. We are more likely to devote more cognitive processing resources to subjects that are more interesting, important or relevant in our judgment. The fourth aspect is the interplay between automatic and controlled processing. Automatic processes require fewer resources. Given our limited processing capacity, time and other types of constraints have consequences for our cognitive processing. Under constraints, most individuals tend to simplify their processing by relying on less information, relying on automatic cognitive processes as opposed to conscious ones, or relying on prior information as opposed to information available in the circumstances. Anchoring is one such a simplification. The nature of the situation we are facing will determine which of these mechanisms will be selected. They will be reused or abandoned depending on whether they provide a sound basis for our responses to the social environment. If the simplifications lead to interpretations that harm us, we are likely to abandon them. If, on the other hand, there is no harm or there is a benefit, then we are likely to reuse those simplifications.

Anchoring effect Anchoring is defined as the effect of a prior judgment of an object, the anchor, on our future judgments regarding another object. These judgments may be about a numerical value, a probability, or even a moral or legal judgment. As an example, consider the situation where people are asked whether the population of a city is greater than or smaller than a value. Let’s say two groups of people are asked the same question with two anchors: Group A is asked whether the population of Houston is more than or less than 500,000. Group B is asked whether the population of Houston more than or less than 2,000,000. In this example, the values of 500,000 and 2,000,000 serve as anchors. Both groups are then asked: What is your estimate of the population of Houston? Experiments indicate that the people who were given the lower anchor on average give a lower estimate for the population and vice versa. How does anchoring happen? Cognitive psychologists tell us that human judgment is essentially relative or comparison based, even if we are not asked to make a comparison explicitly. So, in evaluating the present object or person, our minds search for an anchor. A particular anchor may be selected because it is readily accessible, because it is suggested to us, or “self-generated via an insufficient adjustment process” (Mussweiler et al). Our prior cognitive processing of the anchor increases the accessibility of anchor-consistent knowledge, which influences our subsequent judgments. For example, when we meet a person from a country, the first person we met from that country may become our anchor. If we had a positive experience with the first person, we are likely to interpret the actions of this new person with a positive light. While cognitive heuristics such as anchoring help us make quick decisions under constraints, they may also lead to errors. The price we pay for the economy provided by the heuristics is “systematically biased judgments under certain conditions.” (Bless et al., p. 24). For instance, a car dealer may offer you a very high price as an anchor and ask you to make a counter offer. Experiments have demonstrated that under such circumstances, the value of the initial offer has a significant effect on what people will be willing to pay for the final price of the car. If the initial offer is very high, the customer is likely to accept a higher negotiated price and vice versa. The anchoring effect can also be observed when we take a few characteristics of a person and consciously or subconsciously fit them to a stereotype.

In such cases, we may misperceive their motivations or misunderstand their circumstances. Sometimes the anchor can be manipulated by some person other than ourselves, as in the case of the car dealer. Sometimes, we may pick the anchor unintentionally based on information obtained from the mass media. As the mass media tend to focus on rare events that tend to be negative, the stereotypes formed based on information solely derived from the mass media may be misleading (Said, 1997). What are some of the lessons we can derive from our discussion of the anchoring effect? For one, we need to point the mirror at ourselves and ask: Are we forming stereotypes of others that may be inaccurate? Are we influenced by the anchoring effect in our judgment of other people? To see whether we may have anchors for evaluating people of different backgrounds consider your initial thoughts about Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Americans, Russians, Asians, Africans, Mexicans, etc. Are these anchors based on scientific data or news media coverage of events or personal encounters with one or more individuals? It may be infeasible to try to collect encyclopedic information about every nationality, religion, or culture that we encounter. But in matters that impact our society we ought to do a better job of researching a diversity of resources. But perhaps a more important lesson is this—the anchoring effect is here to stay as part of the reality of human cognition. If we would like to provide accurate, reliable information to people about ourselves, our culture and values, we should reach them before they form a negative anchor or stereotype. If we would like our cultural background, religion, or values to be understood without distortion, we need to reach out to as many people as possible around us and interact with them. We need to hold conversations, and share meaningful experiences with them to anchor their future judgments in an accurate reference point. The anchoring effect is demonstrated to be pervasive and robust in psychology. It is not likely to disappear in the foreseeable future. However, we do have the opportunity to reach out and help form positive anchors for better human relationships.

Further reading

• Bless, H., Fiedler, K., Strack, F. 2004. Social Cognition, New York: Taylor and Francis.
• Huitt, W. 2003. The Information Processing Approach to Cognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
• Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. 2001. The Semantics of Anchoring. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 86, 234–255.
• Said, E. 1997. Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World, New York: Random House.