Prepared by:
Dr. Michael Garko, Ph.D., M.S., M.A.
Introduction: Rethinking Big Problems
When people confront serious life challenges whether managing a chronic disease,
navigating family problems, coping with financial difficulties, or facing other daunting
social crises such as the obesity epidemic or violence the sheer scale of the problem
can feel overwhelming and paralyzing. Karl Weick, in his classic 1984 article Small
Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems, argued that framing social issues as
“huge problems” often overwhelms people’s capacity to think and act effectively.
Weick’s central insight was paradoxical, that is, people often can’t solve problems
unless they stop treating them as monumental. When problems are defined too broadly,
they trigger what he called arousal or otherwise a heightened state of mental and
emotional activation. Arousal isn’t always bad in that moderate levels sharpen attention
and performance. But when arousal is too high, it narrows focus, creates tunnel vision,
and pushes people toward rigid, simplistic responses.
By breaking big problems into smaller, more manageable challenges, what Weick called
small wins, people can lower arousal to a productive level and act in more thoughtful,
creative, and sustainable ways.
Arousal and Social Problems: Why Big Problems Overwhelm
Weick drew from psychology’s Yerkes-Dodson Law: performance improves with
moderate arousal but deteriorates when arousal is too high or too low. In practice,
framing issues such as obesity, coronary artery disease or opioid addiction as all-
encompassing problems raises arousal beyond the point of usefulness. People feel
anxious, helpless, or defensive, and their ability to think optimistically and flexibly
collapses.
By contrast, framing seemingly daunting challenges as “solvable problems” manageable
in scope stabilizes arousal at a level that supports problem-solving.
Instead of reacting with panic or avoidance, people can engage with complexity,
consider alternatives, and take practical steps.
This is why Weick insisted on redefining the scale of social problems. A challenge that
feels overwhelming can be recast into smaller opportunities for progress, lowering
arousal and expanding the range of possible actions.
The Characteristics of Small Wins
Weick defined a small win as “a concrete, complete, implemented outcome of moderate
importance.” By themselves, small wins may look minor. But a sequence of them can:
👉 Build momentum by making the next step clearer and more achievable.
👉 Reveal patterns that attract allies and deter opponents.
👉 Lower resistance because incremental changes feel less threatening than
sweeping reforms.
👉 Stabilize progress since small gains are less likely to unravel than one fragile
“big win.”
Social movements like Alcoholics Anonymous (“one day at a time”) or campaigns to
reduce specific pollutants show how small wins, accumulated over time, change culture
and policy.
The Psychology of Small Wins
Weick also showed why small wins work so well from a psychological perspective:
👉 Cognitive limitations: Human minds have bounded rationality; big, abstract
problems overwhelm. Small wins reduce complexity, provide immediate
feedback, and clarify cause-and-effect.
👉 Affective limitations: People prefer manageable steps. Incremental change
feels achievable, lowers emotional resistance, and sustains motivation.
👉 Stress and arousal: Small wins reduce perceived threat, shrinking the gap
between demands and capabilities. This lowers stress and builds resilience.
👉 Enactment of environments: Small wins reshape reality itself. By acting in
modest, concrete ways, people create new environments that foster hope and
further action.
Applying Small Wins to Health and Wellness
Weick’s framework has profound relevance to modern health challenges such as rising
rates of chronic disease, sedentary lifestyles, poor diet quality, and stress-related
illness. These problems can seem overwhelming, creating the kind of paralyzing arousal
that stops people from taking action.
By applying the principle of small wins, the path becomes clearer:
👉 Nutrition: Instead of aiming for a total diet overhaul, replace one processed
snack a day with fruit, or add one serving of vegetables at dinner.
👉 Movement: Rather than training for a marathon, start with 10 minutes of walking
after meals. This modest step improves blood sugar regulation and vascular
function.
👉 Stress management: Instead of eliminating all stress, practice one breathing
exercise or two minutes of mindfulness each day. Small but consistent acts
reduce sympathetic overdrive.
👉 Botanicals and supplementation: Herbs such as aged garlic extract, hawthorn,
bilberry, or white willow bark work subtly, reducing oxidative stress, improving
circulation, and lowering inflammation over time. They are small wins in plant
form or otherwise modest supports that, when taken consistently, create
cumulative benefits.
These examples show how reframing health as a sequence of achievable steps not only
lowers arousal but also empowers people to act with confidence. Each small win is
visible, reinforcing, and sustainable. Together, they compound into lasting change.
Conclusion: Small Wins for Big Change
Karl Weick’s theory of small wins teaches us that the way we frame problems matters
as much as the solutions themselves. Defining health challenges such as obesity,
diabetes, or cardiovascular disease as monumental crises often overwhelms people
and triggers unhelpful arousal. By contrast, reframing them into manageable, concrete
wins keeps arousal at the optimal level for creativity, persistence, and real progress.
The ill health of society is one of the great social problems of our time. But, as Weick
argued, lasting change doesn’t come from one heroic act. It comes from a series of
small, visible wins that build momentum and reshape environments. Whether through
diet, exercise, stress management, or herbal support, health is created, sustained, and
restored not in leaps but in steps.
Health, like society, changes one small win at a time.
References
👉 Weick, K. E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems.
American Psychologist, 39(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.1.40