Is this overly pessimistic or grounded reality? Here's my thinking:
Framing your process to find a solution will likely result in the minimal possible resolution that will fix the problem. This could prevent you from solving the root problem and only fix the associated symptoms. It might also cause you to not go far enough to combat the problem, resulting in failing to sustain any gains and re-occurrence of the problem. I think it also wrongly assumes that the normal state of life is not having a problem, that the problem is an exception that will be fixed by the solution you find. That the problem is a brief hiatus from the typical state of everything running smoothly.
As an alternative, think about what would happen if you were very successful in solving your current problem. What new problem would you experience from solving your initial problems? Here's an example:
You're unemployed and looking for work. Using the typical approach you would say that your problem is "not having a job" and the defined solution would be "get a job". The likely course of action would be to take the first job offer you come across. That's because you're looking to find the shortest path from problem to solution. Your success is defined by the efficiency with which you can check this box complete. But this possible short cut could come back to haunt you if this new position is not right for you. It's possible you could find yourself back in the job market again soon, only this time more discouraged.
What if you looked at it like this instead? My current problem is that I don't have a job and my proposed future problem will be that I have so many job offers that I can't decide which one I want to take! Notice that by working towards the end point in the second case, you will automatically fulfill the end point of the first case, but without potentially selling yourself short.
I'm interested to hear what you think about this idea. Is this a viable alternative to typical problem solving or am wrong in my thinking?