Problem-solving styles are natural, consistent preferences in the way people approach change, process information, and make decisions when solving problems. They can be scientifically measured using the VIEW assessment, which distinguishes three dimensions: orientation toward change, information processing style, and decision-making style. Styles are value-neutral—there are no “better” or “worse” styles—but teams that understand and leverage these differences demonstrably solve problems faster and more creatively.
Style Is Not a Skill
First, let’s clear up a misunderstanding. “He isn’t creative” is a statement about skill or ability. A problem-solving style says something else: not how well someone solves problems, but how someone naturally prefers to do so. Two equally talented colleagues can approach the same issue in completely different ways—one by improving what already exists step by step, the other by questioning everything.
Both approaches are valuable, in different situations. The problem arises when teams fail to recognize that difference: then the improver is labeled “conservative” and the innovator “chaotic,” and the team loses precisely the tension that could make it productive.
A second nuance: style is a preference, not a straitjacket. Those who know their own style can consciously choose to behave differently when the situation calls for it. That ability—cognitive flexibility—can be trained, and it starts with self-awareness.
The Three Dimensions of the VIEW Assessment
VIEW: An Assessment of Problem Solving Style, developed by Selby, Treffinger, and Isaksen, measures three independent dimensions:
1. Orientation to change: Explorer or Developer
How do you deal with change, structure, and authority? Explorers seek out the radically new: they challenge existing frameworks, are eager to leap into the unknown, and get bored with optimization. Developers innovate within the existing framework: they improve step by step, build on what works, and ensure that innovations are also implementable.
Organizations need both: Explorers without Developers produce ideas that never take root; Developers without Explorers optimize themselves out of relevance.
2. Manner of Processing: external or internal
Where do you prefer to process information? People with an external preference think while talking: they need interaction to form their thoughts and thrive in lively sessions. People with an internal preference think first and speak afterward: they process information best in silence and come up with well-thought-out contributions—if given the space.
This explains why traditional brainstorming sessions systematically miss half of the thinking potential: open group discussion favors external processors, while internal processors are never able to share their best ideas. Effective facilitation therefore alternates between quiet, individual work methods and interaction.
3. Ways of Deciding: Task-Oriented or People-Oriented
What carries the most weight when you’re making decisions? Task-oriented decision-makers base their decisions on logic, criteria, and results; they want the objectively best option. People-oriented decision-makers first weigh the impact on people, support, and harmony; they want the option that the group stands behind.
Again: neither style is better or worse. A decision that makes logical sense but lacks support is just as worthless as a supported decision that is substantively flawed.
What this means for teams
The practical power of problem-solving styles lies in teamwork:
Team composition. Homogeneous teams feel comfortable and make decisions quickly—but systematically miss the same blind spots. Cognitively diverse teams struggle more, but perform better on complex problems. Research on collective intelligence confirms this: diversity in thinking styles is a better predictor of team performance than the sum of individual IQs.
Conflict prevention. Many “personality clashes” in teams are actually differences in thinking styles. When a team knows its VIEW profiles, “he always drags his feet” becomes “she makes task-oriented decisions and I make people-oriented ones—let’s do both checks.” The same behavior, a completely different conversation.
Facilitation and leadership. Anyone facilitating a session or leading a team can tailor the process to the styles present: quiet writing rounds for internal processors, space for exploration for Explorers, and implementation questions for Developers.
That’s why the VIEW model is fully integrated into the CPS 6.1 Facilitator Certification: each participant receives their own VIEW feedback and learns to manage style differences productively.
VIEW vs. Other Assessments
“Another test?” is a natural reaction—the market is flooded with color models and typologies, and many teams have already taken three of them. Five reasons why VIEW is in a league of its own:
Specifically designed for problem-solving.
General personality models (MBTI, DISC, Insights) describe who you are in general. VIEW measures how you tackle a problem you haven’t solved yet—how you handle change, information, and decisions under uncertainty. This is precisely the behavior that matters in innovation, change, and teamwork. Personality tests answer the “who” question; VIEW answers the “how” question.
Continuous dimensions, no boxes.
VIEW doesn’t assign a four-letter type or a color. Each of the three dimensions is a continuous scale: your profile shows where your preference lies and how pronounced it is. That’s closer to reality than a box—and it prevents a label from taking on a life of its own.
Scientifically validated.
VIEW was developed by Selby, Treffinger, and Isaksen, building on over forty years of research into creative problem-solving. The reliability and validity data have been published; the instrument is supported by more than eighty peer-reviewed articles and thirty doctoral dissertations; and it has been administered to hundreds of thousands of professionals worldwide. Many popular typologies do not pass that test.
Value-neutral by design.
There are no “good” or “bad” profiles—an Explorer is no more creative than a Developer, and an internal processor is no less engaged than an external one. This removes the incentive to give socially desirable answers and prevents labels that pigeonhole people. The tool encourages flexibility rather than pigeonholing.
A complement, not a replacement.
VIEW does not conflict with what your team was already doing. MBTI or Insights tell you who people are; VIEW tells you how they approach a problem—two languages that can coexist. The difference lies in how they’re used: a VIEW profile only becomes truly interesting when viewed alongside the profiles of the rest of the team, as a starting point for concrete working agreements on how the team meets, makes decisions, and handles disagreements.
The assessment and feedback are provided by a certified VIEW practitioner, who translates the results into the team context.
Getting Started with Problem-Solving Styles
Three approaches, depending on your situation:
For your team. Conduct a VIEW team assessment with guided feedback: each team member receives their profile, and the team learns to leverage their differences. Often combined with an assessment of the innovation climate (SOQ)—styles reveal how individuals think, while climate or environment reveals whether that thinking is allowed.
For yourself as a coach, consultant, or facilitator. Become a certified VIEW practitioner and add a scientifically grounded tool to your toolkit. o2c2 guides consultants and advisors through this process.
For your organization. Integrate style awareness into a broader process focused on innovation capacity—from team development to facilitator training.
Curious about what problem-solving styles can do for your team? Schedule an appointment for an introductory meeting.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a problem-solving style and a skill?
A skill indicates how well you can do something and can be trained to a higher level. A style indicates how you naturally prefer to approach things and is value-neutral: an Explorer isn’t more creative than a Developer—they’re just creative in different ways. That’s why a style profile doesn’t predict performance, but rather which approach energizes someone and where their blind spots lie.
What is the difference between VIEW and personality tests such as MBTI or DISC?
Three differences.
Focus: Personality models describe who you are in general; VIEW specifically measures how you tackle problems—the behavior that matters when it comes to innovation and change.
Evidence: VIEW has published reliability and validity data from peer-reviewed research—a test that many popular typologies fail to meet.
Design: VIEW doesn’t have “good” or “bad” profiles, so there are no socially desirable answers and no labels—it measures preferences across three continuous dimensions rather than pigeonholing people into a type or color.
Can my style change?
Your natural preference is fairly stable over time. What does grow with awareness and practice, however, is your ability to work outside your preference when the situation calls for it—cognitive flexibility. The goal of a VIEW program is therefore not to change your style, but to expand your repertoire.
Is there an ideal team composition?
No. It’s not about the “right mix,” but about awareness: a homogeneous team that recognizes its blind spots can compensate for them; a diverse team that doesn’t understand the differences gets bogged down in conflict. The assessment primarily shifts the conversation—from personality clashes to differences in style.
How long does a VIEW assessment take?
Filling out the assessment itself takes about fifteen minutes online. The value lies in the feedback: individually or as a team, guided by a certified VIEW practitioner who translates the profiles into the specific team context.