This is Part 2 of the mistakes and traps of human reasoning in problem solving. Our intuition can lead us astray and cause focus on one solution without examining others as discussed in Part 1 . Even if we avoid those types of pitfalls in our reasoning, the fallibility of the process can also cause issues.
Consider a meeting that is called to discuss how to solve a complex decision and everyone comes together. In preparation of the meeting, each of the participants think hard about the situation and come to the meeting prepared to champion their idea of the solution. The meeting spends an hour presenting each person’s idea and discussing each one in turn. After working so hard, the leader picks one solution or calls a vote to decide. Was this analyzing the problem to solve it? Or did it feel more like a debate or a popularity contest?
Or maybe those meeting participants focus all their attention on the substance and information of the leading solution. They spend significant time examining the evidence, arguments, and conclusion, fact checking looking for mistakes. That sounds important, right? But do they look at the process of how they are looking at the pieces of information and how to organize things to evaluate them compared to all the proposals to objectively arrive at the better course of action? Or was the decision based upon who was able to communicate their idea the best?
Can you list tools and techniques for structuring your analysis? When put on the spot during my class, most people cannot. Then I remind them about brainstorming and half the group face palms murmuring, “of course”. But then several of those same students cannot describe how to properly apply the technique. Have you attended a meeting where the leader said, “Let’s get together and brainstorm some ideas,” and the group goes around the room presenting their preferred idea and the debate them like the example above? When applied correctly, brainstorming is a structured tool that separates idea generation from evaluation, keeping that intuitive advocacy in check until multiple choices are looked at.
Recall that in thinking analytically or critically, we want to look at information objectively to arrive at the best solution.
Please give me a “like” and share with others. Thank you for reading.
Yes, that would be following the Problem Solving Loop. Define the problem first, brainstorm potential solutions, select a course of action, and evaluate results of the implementation. If the situation is not very complex and research/data collection is readily available, the initial steps could take place in one session. But when talking about complex business problems where the manager needs subject matter experts to resolve, I could each step of problem solving being a separate meeting.
I just attended a Continuous Process Improvement team meeting the other day and they were getting together to evaluate a complex issue they identified back in December. I had not been there for any of the prior meetings, so was only an observer this…
Did you mean we should first have a meeting to define the problem correctly. Second meeting to brainstorm solutions and quickly determine if some solution are not viable. Third meeting to compare all the solutions after some researching. Hopefully you reach a concessive on which solution would be best for solving the problem.
Did you mean we should first have a meeting to define the problem correctly. Second meeting to brainstorm solutions and quickly determine if some solution are not viable. Third meeting to compare all the solutions