Mike Lehr's Blog

We often view measurements as unchangeable. A meter is a meter, a pound a pound. We often forget that at some time someone somewhere declared what those were and that they would be a standard. The point is this: arbitrariness underlies almost all objective standards by which we live.

For example, in the January 29, 2011 edition of The Economist, the article, “The Constant Gardeners”, explores the kilogram. The official standard is a platinum-iridium alloy cast in 1879. However, today, its weight seems to vary from its copies by up to 69 micrograms, about half a grain of sand, an important variance when weighing small things. So, the question is this: How heavy is a kilogram . . . really?

The relevancy to problem solving is similar to that which I wrote in my post, “Arbitrariness: The Cornerstone of Conditions”:

By searching for the underlying arbitrary aspect of any apparently objective situation, we can often find the perspective – when altered – that can cause us to see that situation in a different light.

For example, when someone asks us, “What’s the best way to get from A to B?” we often give the fastest route. The assumption being that the “best way” is “fastest” when “best” could have many different attributes. Over time, the best-fastest link becomes the arbitrary point – when altered – that sheds a different light on what route might be best such as the most scenic one or the most fuel-efficient.

As a more sophisticated example, consider our reliance upon “proven outcomes.” What does that mean especially when you cannot scientifically prove that good leadership begets good results? Thus, when we look at what it took to be proven, we often find that it’s subjective based upon who is determining what “good leadership” and “good results” are.

YinYang, as expressed by the Taijitu symbol, has helped me solve many problems. The two major components represent the two major opposing forces in any event. The smaller part of each in the other represents the interplay between the two.

I have extracted five principles from YinYang that have helped me. In short, optimal solutions will:

1. Have opposing forces (i.e. ideas, emotions, things) at work
2. Not choose one force over the other
3. Balance and integrate the two forces
4. Have one force as dominant and the other supportive
5. Vary by situation

For example, let’s consider the problem of how much to water a plant. Two forces exist, dryness and wetness (#1). If we choose dryness over wetness by never watering the plant, it will die. If we choose wetness over dryness by constantly watering the plant, the plant will die (#2). Thus, we need to integrate the two and find the right balance between watering and drying (#3). In this balance, the plant’s soil will be mainly dry or wet (#4). This balance varies by plant (#5, i.e. cacti versus willows).

In business, we often view these as tradeoffs such as processes versus flexibility, positive versus negative reinforcements, best practices versus differentiation, focus versus situational awareness, change versus resistance, profits versus investments, and glass half-full versus half-empty. However, tradeoffs encourage the temptation to choose one over the other; it’s really about integrating the two (#4).

Many times, it’s difficult to identify the opposing force. So, I ask myself this question:

If I take an obvious solution to the extreme, what would happen?

For example, too much process makes everything bureaucratic. Too much importance on profits retards investments. Once accomplished, we can begin balancing the two to arrive at an optimal solution for the situation at hand.

Classical business literature emphasizes focus: set goals, plan, and then focus on execution. However, it’s relatively void of focus’ downside: obliviousness to peripheral threats and opportunities.

In the mid-1900’s, when conditions didn’t change as dynamically as today’s, extensive research, planning and focus worked. Today, most research is outdated upon completion. Consequently, situational awareness (SA) becomes more important as part of an adaptive business strategy.

SA is the degree to which a person or company can be aware of surrounding conditions while focused on a task or plan. Ironically, SA came of age with aerial combat; you need to know where you are in the sky while focused on engaging enemy aircraft. If not, you could crash your plane from flying too low or from enemy fire simply because you were oblivious to those factors.

Context strongly influences our planning; however, if conditions forming that context are dynamically changing, that means our plan – the object of our focus – might become invalid by new threats and opportunities, and our focus and poor SA might cause us to overlook them. Psychological influences such as anchoring and optimistic planning will create additional pressures to keep us focused and ignorant.

These will also influence our assessment of talent by tending to make it too static and historical. Rather than basing it on people’s potential within new conditions, we will tend to base it on performances under old conditions. We will tend to believe that successes and failures transfer rather than assess actual skills and actual aptitudes within a new set of actual conditions. More simply, this is pigeonholing.

Technology and the internet strongly influence today’s dynamic conditions. Our focus shouldn’t blind us. SA will help us see the many threats, opportunities and talents that will influence our success.

The inverted problem-solving technique (IPT) involves looking at the opposing aspects of a problem. To see IPT’s value it helps to write down the problem. In simple terms, if the problem involves “doing something,” IPT suggests exploring “not doing it” as a potential solution (or “to do it” if “not doing it”).

For instance, I first ran across it as a child when I wanted to learn to play. The book, Complete Chess Course, by Fred Reinfeld had a section called “The Nine Bad Moves.” Rather than immediately teach you good moves, Reinfeld had you learn what not to do. Later, I applied the concept when I developed my training methods: I first identified what I didn’t like about training that I took.

We often spend extensive time evaluating and determining the best solution. In reality, there are often many solutions. Thus, IPT suggests that we look at avoiding a bad decision as a potential solution rather than trying to determine the best. For example, in change initiatives and technology rollouts not only ask, “What can we do to make this successful?” but also ask, “What shouldn’t we do?” Too often people only focus on what needs doing to solve the problem.

Additionally, IPT helps us explore problems deeper by qualifying its various parts. Often, we only ask, “Is this part causing the problem?” Such an evaluative approach limits us to “yes/no answers.” Rather than ask “Is this department hindering the rollout?” ask, “How is this department hindering it?” and “How isn’t it?”

We can even apply these questions to the problem itself (Why is it a problem? Why isn’t it?). After all, it’s not unusual to find people working on the wrong problem. Moreover, the answers themselves will help us find solutions.

Many leadership models give the leader almost divine characteristics or minimally the best humanity can offer within a business context. These models often position the leader as the vanguard of change, the influencer who can move an enterprise from its current state to its future one.

Tunisia’s first lesson is just how conditional leadership really is. Rather than a visionary triggering and influencing events, the leader is often just trying to avoid being overrun. Tunisia’s uprising was not “ordered” by any leader. Tunisia’s second lesson is emotion’s power in galvanizing collective action around a particular point. Demanding free elections is that point in Tunisia. Finally, the third lesson is how small, simple, singular events can trigger these emotions. In Tunisia, the trigger was a college-educated street vendor who set himself on fire.

What do these lessons mean for business leaders?

First, a leader who fits one particular set of circumstances might not fit another. A large, mature enterprise defending its turf from competitors is going to require a different leader than a small, virgin one trying to tap an undeveloped market. Second, emotions are more powerful at galvanizing employees than any reasoned list of benefits. That means connecting initiatives to the particular emotions dominating the workforce such as greatness, safety, happiness and competitiveness. Third, the trigger doesn’t have to be grandiose. Small events that symbolize something greater about the enterprise can do it. This means small, almost invisible success stories can create a powerful narrative about the enterprise and its mission.

Overall, Tunisia reminds us that the number one resistor to change is often the leader of the enterprise. New conditions might necessitate a new leader.

Arbitrariness & First, Second, Third

Arbitrariness is vital to intuitive problem solving because it’s related to subjectivity which is related to personality and its emotional drivers. Looking at the relationship between arbitrariness and conditionality will help us see this.

For instance, the concept of “first” does not need the existence of another number; however, the concept of “second” is dependent upon the condition that “first” exists, and the concept of “third” is dependent upon the condition that “first” and “second” exists.

House of Arbitrariness & Conditionality

Consider a house. Whereas someone can arbitrarily place the first stone of his house anywhere, the rest is built conditionally around that stone which is called the cornerstone. Ideas and knowledge are also built around cornerstones which we often experience as assumptions. Since knowledge influences how we identify, define and examine problems, our problems will have cornerstones too.

For instance, many of us consider the idea of democracy good. However, if such decision making is absolutely superb, why don’t companies and armies use it where more authoritarian styles dominate? This is because democracy’s cornerstone is placed in a governmental location. If we move that cornerstone to a corporate or military location, we will end up building a more authoritarian-style house.

In problem solving, moving the cornerstone to a new location will help us view our old location from a different perspective. But first, we must challenge ourselves to find the cornerstone of any set of conditions in which we find ourselves and the cornerstone of any set of ideas we are using to evaluate those conditions. That means avoiding an unquestioning, absolutist perspective and employing an inquisitive, arbitrary one.