Mike Lehr's Blog

How we position things greatly influences the outcome. In the April 7, 2012 edition of The Economist the article, “Dressing Up,” uncovers that women’s sizes have inflated by four sizes since the 1970’s. Unlike men’s sizing which is based on inches, women’s sizing is purely arbitrary and often varies by brand. Thus, depending on the size, a pair of women’s pants might have increased as much as four inches at the waist and three inches at the hips since then.

The generally accepted assumption for allowing this size inflation is that if consumers feel good about themselves they are likely to buy, thus why the fashion industry calls it “vanity sizing.” However, even though it seems like a topic to take lightly or with which to have fun, vanity sizing plays in all aspects of statistics. That is why it’s important to challenge definitions and assumptions in order to understand and solve problems.

For instance, the article “Botox and Beancounting” of the The Economist’s April 27, 2011 edition, discusses how official U.S. economic statistics might be overinflating its performance relative to Western European economies. Ironically, the article’s title makes an appropriate analogy to vanity sizing.

U.S. unemployment figures present another excellent example. They not only conflict with one another on occasions but they are difficult to figure. Additionally, their accounting changed in the 1980′s, making them appear lower than before.

Thus, while it’s commonly said that “numbers don’t lie,” that’s true; however, an ignoramus isn’t lying either if he believes his own ignorance. If we’re ignorant to numbers’ origination, we are more likely to accept them if they tell us our glass is half full rather than half empty, thus reinforcing our own perceptions . . . also known as “vanity believing.”

In 12Most I wrote about business lessons from various battles. Pydna in 168 B.C. – the titanic clash between two undefeated armies, the Macedonians and the Romans – illustrates flexibility’s inherent power by working with smaller units. We can become better problem solvers if we can train our minds to see the smaller aspects of everything.

At Pydna, the Macedonians fought as a single, massive phalanx in which soldiers fought using 20-foot long pikes. This created a massive wall of sharp daggers. The Romans fought in smaller cohorts; their soldiers used short, 20-inch swords called a gladius. Cohorts became buzz saws as they slashed and cut.

When confronting an enemy directly (Figure #1), the phalanx crushed him. However, the cohorts were flexible and surrounded the Macedonians (Figure #2). While those in front suffered heavily, the pikes did not allow the Macedonians to turn quickly enough to defend against the other Romans. Consequently, the Romans all but obliterated the Macedonians.

One of the best ways to train our minds to see the finer aspects of problems is to think about the differences in similar words. Don’t accept they are the same; if they were we wouldn’t need both. Also, don’t worry about being right; just try to come up with differences. It’s similar to physical exercise: doing is beneficial and winning unessential. As examples, I’ve written about the differences between clarity and truth, intelligence and wisdom, and optimism and Pollyannaism.

We can then apply this by writing the problem down, attacking definitions and breaking our description into smaller parts. Just as breaking change down into small, simple steps makes it easier to effect change, breaking problems down into smaller parts makes it easier to solve them.

The challenge is training our brain to see a solid unit as many parts.

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.

Someone once asked me, “What are the twenty most influential books in your life?” I listed Roget’s Thesaurus as one. It gives us appreciation for the relationship between definitions and connotations so we can:

• Defend ourselves since it’s a verbal martial arts guide
• Find appealing names for initiatives, projects and services
• Assess personalities better in real time since people’s words tell us much about them
• Solve problems better since we often think in words

For example, consider someone calling you “stubborn.” Using the Fifth Edition edited by Robert L. Chapman, I immediately find six words from which to choose: persevering, obstinate, strict, tenacious, inflexible and tough. So, in response to your critic, you can reply, “Thank you, I do consider myself persevering.”

Don’t like this selection? Pick one and explore it. Since Roget’s groups words by categories, we can easily find similar groupings of many similar words including “determined.” Using this same approach, we can find appealing names for new initiatives and projects.

Want to gain insight into personalities? Listen to people’s words. Through words’ connotations, Roget’s helps us discover patterns and insights into how people view concepts, plans, things and people. For instance, someone who uses many order-oriented words in a positive way probably won’t like a plan giving people a lot of flexibility in their decision-making.

Lastly, since we use words to form thoughts, by looking at words differently and from many more perspectives, this will expand and alter our thought processes. Rather than see stubbornness as a problem, we might see it as a solution by discovering it is determination instead.

However, don’t be fooled by the increasingly popular alphabetical thesauruses. They don’t group words effectively. Thus, they don’t have nearly the magic and potency of a Roget’s.

Even though writing down the problem can help us solve it, it’s also a form of defining the problem. Thus, we will tend to define problems according to a nomenclature that we typically use. Since problems don’t care how we define them, our problem-solving approach problem will tend to be clunky and segregated rather than smooth and integrated.

For example, below is a schematic. On the left is a typical functional perspective of business. On the right how a problem has no regard for those functional boundaries.

While obvious, we easily forget. For instance, if we define a problem as, “We need to generate more sales,” we will automatically tend to view it initially as a Sales & Marketing problem. In actuality though, many aspects such as pricing, delivery, servicing, management and technology could exist.

Therefore, in solving problems, it’s best that we assume the solution is an integrated rather than a segregated one. In other words, rather than ask something such as:

• Is this part of the problem?
• Does the problem affect this?

We should ask whether we can prove without a doubt that:

• This isn’t a part of the problem?
• The problem doesn’t affect this?

Thus, returning to the above example, rather than start from the premise that it’s a sales and marketing problem and then see if any other area is affected, start from the assumption it’s a business-wide, integrated problem and eliminate areas as we conclusively prove that they aren’t involved.

By assuming the problem is bigger and more integrated than we initially perceive it, we expand our field of potential solutions and success. Moreover, since we aren’t omniscient, it’s often better to assume the problem is more involved than it initially seems.

In the November 2010 issue of the Harvard Business Review Jeff Weiss, Aram Donigian, Jonathan Huges discuss in their article “Extreme Negotiations” the importance of affecting process not just outcomes in negotiations. The same holds true in problem solving since negotiations are only problems of bringing two sides to agreement. Thus, you can get different solutions by changing your problem-solving process.

In one simple situation, Manager A took the initiative of drafting a plan for review. Manager B did not like it. Thus, they decided to collaborate on the next rendition. As another example, two hiring managers couldn’t agree on a candidate, so they changed the process by requiring the candidate to write a business plan for his hire.

Here are some techniques I use to alter the problem-solving process. I change the:

• Process by having another person or group create it
• Point at which people work independently and then come together
• Definition of the problem to include more lower-tier variables
• Makeup of the people or teams involved in the process
• Documentation required even to the point of using different forms and templates
• Timetable of when a solution is needed
• Any screening and filtering steps to allow more or fewer options
• Stakeholders involved in the process usually by adding new ones
• Objective of the process such as focusing on options not the solution
• Facilitator of the process
• Location of any meetings such as from office to offsite
• Forum for any meetings such as in person versus video conferences
• Initial parameters of what constitutes a viable option for processing

Of course, each problem-solving situation presents its own additional aspects that could effect change in process. So, if you’re not getting the solutions you want, change the process.

We often assume two words have the same meaning. If true, there would be no need for the two separate words. Distinguishing the difference develops our problem-solving skills in very much the same way that higher resolutions allow cameras to picture things that lower-resolution ones can’t. We won’t see problem-solving opportunities using a low-resolution perspective to interpret words. That is because we often use words to define, discuss and think our problems.

Clarity and truth are two such words. Many consider them the same. However, we can to see the difference by asking two questions:

1. Can we have clarity without truth?
2. Can we have truth without clarity?

The answer to both is “yes.” For example, scapegoats make it very clear who is at fault for a problem, but in most cases there is enough blame to go around to many. In the second, we realize that this is true, but we also know that often it’s not clear as to all who is to blame. Something might be clear to us, but we could be mistaken, wrong or delusional, therefore untrue. Conversely, we might know the truth, but it might not be clear; it could be invisible, intangible or indiscernible.

Let’s consider some common business examples. People might be clear about a company’s path, but is it truly a good one? It’s also true that training helps employees, but is it clear exactly how this can be measured? It’s also true that what is clearly good to one person might not be so clear to another. One might be discounting or ignoring facts that could either cloud or clear up the issue. Clarity and truth can be subjective.

So, while it’s clear we have two separate words, it’s true that their difference is not clear.

I ran across a good article by Malcom Gladwell in the February 14 & 21 issue of The New Yorker titled, “The Order of Things.” The detail with which he explores rankings of colleges, hospitals and cars demonstrates the immense subjective potential rankings have. What is even more astounding is Gladwell’s discovery of the degree to which many organizations hold their leaders accountable for their place in these rankings.

From an intuitive perspective, people tend to have an emotional connection to statistics; they satisfy feelings for certainty, clarity and knowledgeableness. Thus, when we express arguments statistically, they tend to carry more weight than if we simply express them in words. Rankings clearly define for us what is best, better and good. However, they are more akin to magic where reality is but a trick. Thus, the feelings we receive from rankings (certainty, clarity, knowledgeableness) are satisfied because we want to believe their magic is real.

As a rule, unless the ranking is comparing very similar things against a single, measurable criterion, it is highly subjective. Therefore, here are some important questions to ask about the ranking to discover how its trick works:

• Is it really comparing similar things?
• Is the ranking based upon multiple criteria?
• How important is each criterion and is it valid?
• How does it weight the criteria?
• Is it using some criteria as proxies for things that are difficult to quantify or research?
• What important criteria are absent because of these difficulties?
• Is the difference between one rank and each of those immediately above and below it that significant?
• How accurate was the data collected for each criterion?
• What problems might have retarded data quality?

Applying these questions will demonstrate that our affinity for rankings is more emotional than pragmatic.

Writing down the problem was a problem-solving technique I discussed in a previous post. Attacking definitions is another that complements this one. For instance, consider the problem:

Making a better window

We now attack what we mean by “making,” “better,” and “window.” For example, by making do we mean create, produce, deliver or service? By better do we mean cost, maintenance or longevity? By window, do we mean a current offering or a new one? Through this attacking, we begin to attack our definition of the problem, stimulating our thinking and opening windows to potential solutions.

We can visualize what’s happening with a castle. Its walls define what comprises it while at the same time what it doesn’t. However, if we need to repair a building inside the castle, the materials might not rest within the castle walls but outside them which the walls don’t allow us to see. Definitions work the same way: they define what a word comprises and doesn’t comprise. While they help to focus our attention by erecting walls to keep out confusion and vagueness, they also hinder our ability to see solutions resting beyond their walls.

Thus, the solution to our window problem might not be a window with enhanced qualities. It might be one easier to install and service, or one quicker to produce or less costly.

We can also apply an intuitive approach by asking, “Does the window need to be objectively better or just perceptually better?” If so, the solution might be as superficial as having a better advertising campaign to point out its advantages. All of these might solve the problem depending upon how we define the words. In short, it might be as simple as defining the problem better.

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.