Framed II
So, to follow on from yesterday's post: whether you are in Sales or Accounting or Parts or Design; problem-solving is a big part of every day. Last time I said you might have a small problem if you assumed that everyone else framed a problem the same you did; and a much bigger problem if it turned out you were right. Unpack that, please...
Here's an example that will make things clearer (if you want a different one, go to the bottom of the Previous Posts list and click - you should then see Building Better Boards; that post contains a four-colour-coded example).
You can measure a person's approach to two closely-related thinking activities: the way they tackle problems and the way they come up with ideas. The first we can set up as scale from Linear (address the presenting problem directly using steps A,B and C to get the most immediate solution) to Global (step back from the presenting problem and try to understand the context in order to come up with the most comprehensive solution). The second we can also set up as a scale, this time from Concrete (analytical thinkers, who break things down into their "atomic" parts, and who want concrete results - preferably by yesterday) to Conceptual (synthetical thinkers, who combine known facts to come up with new constructs in a creative manner - possibly by tomorrow).
Ignoring the middle ground on each scale for the moment, that means there are four broad possibilities for the way any person is wired: Global+Conceptual (big picture, new ideas - sometime), Global+Concrete (see the big picture but want results by yesterday), Linear+Concrete (step-by-step analysis and solid results in a timely manner) and Linear+Conceptual (constantly improving upon a detailed step-by-step approach).
Let's assume for the moment that you are Linear+Concrete, you have three colleagues standing with you and you are looking at the smouldering ruins of one of your high-street retail shops. You say, "well, it's obvious what we do next" and they say "yes, it is".
What do you all mean?
You probably mean that someone needs to get the manual on disaster recovery from head office, find the relevant scenario and follow the instructions. If you know there is no such manual then you will be thinking "get details of our insurance, find out how much stock and equipment was there and collect the documentation thereof," and so on.
Does anybody else mean that?
Possibly, but in a random sample we would expect at least one of the other perspectives would be represented. So at least one of you colleagues may be thinking "what opportunity does this represent to change our retail presence in this town; I must give this some thought" (Global+Conceptual) OR "what opportunity does this represent to improve our disaster recovery processes; I must give this some thought" (Linear+Conceptual) OR - if I am standing there with you - "I bet we could get short-term emergency accommodation in a couple of other locations in town (by this afternoon) and analyse performance from those temporary sites to decide where we want to be once this gets sorted" (Global+Linear).
Which perspective is right? They are all right, but none of them complete of itself.
The real problem only arises if we fail to articulate what each of us is seeing. If, having agreed that what to do is "obvious", we all set about doing what is "obvious" to us, the next scenario is likely to involve a certain amount of "what on earth did you think you were doing????" To avoid this, after agreeing that we each see something "obvious", it is worth asking exactly what that is and why. Then we can get some perspectives we mightn't have thought of ourselves, and come up with a plan that takes many or all perspectives into account (but which may prioritise certain actions over others). In other words, assume there are many perspectives at work and bring them all into play; don't assume unanimity of vision.
But what if you have just a single vision and perspective at work?
The four of you stand looking at the smoking ruin, and indeed all any of you can see is the need to follow established procedures, establish and remediate actual loss and so forth. What's wrong with this picture?
At one level nothing - certainly nothing that any of you will notice. You will have lost an opportunity to think of new options, but will be happy in your unknowing. Maybe that isn't a big deal - today. But over time, if the four of you consistently only see the Linear and Concrete aspects of your work and none of the Global and Conceptual perspectives, it is likely that you will lose significant ground to competitors or even your basic viability as a business. And hear this: the same would be true if you were all Global and Conceptual, or any other combination you care to mention.
In summary, diversity of perspective makes for better problem-framing and therefore problem-solving; provided that the diversity is a) recognised and b) valued and put to work. Uniformity of perspective makes for a quiet life - and usually a sad ending...
Here's an example that will make things clearer (if you want a different one, go to the bottom of the Previous Posts list and click - you should then see Building Better Boards; that post contains a four-colour-coded example).
You can measure a person's approach to two closely-related thinking activities: the way they tackle problems and the way they come up with ideas. The first we can set up as scale from Linear (address the presenting problem directly using steps A,B and C to get the most immediate solution) to Global (step back from the presenting problem and try to understand the context in order to come up with the most comprehensive solution). The second we can also set up as a scale, this time from Concrete (analytical thinkers, who break things down into their "atomic" parts, and who want concrete results - preferably by yesterday) to Conceptual (synthetical thinkers, who combine known facts to come up with new constructs in a creative manner - possibly by tomorrow).
Ignoring the middle ground on each scale for the moment, that means there are four broad possibilities for the way any person is wired: Global+Conceptual (big picture, new ideas - sometime), Global+Concrete (see the big picture but want results by yesterday), Linear+Concrete (step-by-step analysis and solid results in a timely manner) and Linear+Conceptual (constantly improving upon a detailed step-by-step approach).
Let's assume for the moment that you are Linear+Concrete, you have three colleagues standing with you and you are looking at the smouldering ruins of one of your high-street retail shops. You say, "well, it's obvious what we do next" and they say "yes, it is".
What do you all mean?
You probably mean that someone needs to get the manual on disaster recovery from head office, find the relevant scenario and follow the instructions. If you know there is no such manual then you will be thinking "get details of our insurance, find out how much stock and equipment was there and collect the documentation thereof," and so on.
Does anybody else mean that?
Possibly, but in a random sample we would expect at least one of the other perspectives would be represented. So at least one of you colleagues may be thinking "what opportunity does this represent to change our retail presence in this town; I must give this some thought" (Global+Conceptual) OR "what opportunity does this represent to improve our disaster recovery processes; I must give this some thought" (Linear+Conceptual) OR - if I am standing there with you - "I bet we could get short-term emergency accommodation in a couple of other locations in town (by this afternoon) and analyse performance from those temporary sites to decide where we want to be once this gets sorted" (Global+Linear).
Which perspective is right? They are all right, but none of them complete of itself.
The real problem only arises if we fail to articulate what each of us is seeing. If, having agreed that what to do is "obvious", we all set about doing what is "obvious" to us, the next scenario is likely to involve a certain amount of "what on earth did you think you were doing????" To avoid this, after agreeing that we each see something "obvious", it is worth asking exactly what that is and why. Then we can get some perspectives we mightn't have thought of ourselves, and come up with a plan that takes many or all perspectives into account (but which may prioritise certain actions over others). In other words, assume there are many perspectives at work and bring them all into play; don't assume unanimity of vision.
But what if you have just a single vision and perspective at work?
The four of you stand looking at the smoking ruin, and indeed all any of you can see is the need to follow established procedures, establish and remediate actual loss and so forth. What's wrong with this picture?
At one level nothing - certainly nothing that any of you will notice. You will have lost an opportunity to think of new options, but will be happy in your unknowing. Maybe that isn't a big deal - today. But over time, if the four of you consistently only see the Linear and Concrete aspects of your work and none of the Global and Conceptual perspectives, it is likely that you will lose significant ground to competitors or even your basic viability as a business. And hear this: the same would be true if you were all Global and Conceptual, or any other combination you care to mention.
In summary, diversity of perspective makes for better problem-framing and therefore problem-solving; provided that the diversity is a) recognised and b) valued and put to work. Uniformity of perspective makes for a quiet life - and usually a sad ending...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home