What is playing out now between the Republicans and Democrats provides cautionary tale in leadership. Everyone knows we are facing a major, if not potentially catastrophic, economic problem. Congress has to step up to the leadership plate to help solve it. However, their approach to working together is so entrenched; it creates a hurdle to finding a timely and effective solution.
The two parties operate within a framework that is based on drawing the ‘proverbial line in the sand’. Each party stands in opposition to the other, pushing their own point of view and denigrating the opposition’s point of view. From those positions they stay stuck in a quagmire indefinitely, arguing about who has the better or worst solution. The problem wins and we lose.
This plays out in organizations all the time. A problem comes up. People have different points of view on how to solve it. Leaders are pitted against each other, pushing for their agendas and pet solution. There are indefinitely delays and the problem gets bigger. This often leads to making precipitous decisions because time finally runs out and forces your hand.
In both cases, leaders would be much more effective, if they positioned themselves differently in relationship to that line in the sand. If all the problems solvers moved to one side of the line and they put the PROBLEM on the other side of the line, it would change their perspective. It would shift the collective focus of the participants to the problem, not each other. They could collectively look at the problem and address it.
Standing shoulder to shoulder, rather than in opposition to each other, leaders can actually begin to talk about how you see and understand the problem. From that shared understanding, you can generate ideas to solve it. Everything is up for consideration. No idea is red or blue. From that shared platform, creative solutions can be crafted. Result: problem is solved and we all win.
Added tip: I learned a great problem solving framework from Dr. Fosmire, a professor, and consultant that I worked with many years ago. It has been universally applicable in all settings.
The shorthand title is S-T-P. It means Situation-Target-Proposal. It can be used individually or collectively. Here’s how it works:
Situation: What are the characteristics of the problem we are trying to solve?
Target: What is the outcome we want?
Proposal: How can we get there?
Usually, when we try to solve a problem, we randomly jump all around these categories, in a chaotic manner. Systematically moving through this framework significantly increases your effectiveness and potential for creative solutions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Patricia,
Wouldn't it be wonderful if all the politicians learned to cooperate with each other? Instead of the Win-Lose method, they could benefit greatly using Patty Newbold's third alternative approach. She explains it so well in her Enjoy Being Married teleclasses.
Now if we could just get them to listen!
Beth LaMie
Hi Beth. Yes I agree. Patty's third alternative is the same point of view that I have too. She is brillant in her use of it with married couples. In communication arenas it is often called the win-win solution. No matter what the name, we all win when people use it.
Thanks for your comment.
I've never heard this said more clearly than you just said it:
If all the problems solvers moved to one side of the line and they put the PROBLEM on the other side of the line...
Brilliant. Thanks. I'll be quoting you (with credit, of course!).
Barbara Sher
Patricia, great advice for our leaders in Congress and the administration.
Whenever we stand in opposition, we can't even see the solutions that make the most sense. Instead, we are blinded to them by our focus on the Proposal that came to mind before we knew what the Target is.
Our two political parties are a lot like two spouses in the mistakes they make, only without divorce as an option.
Barbara,
Barbara,
Thank you for reading this and for leaving a comment. I am always tickled pink whenever there is something I have written that you like.
Patty,
Thanks for your comment. It strikes me that part of the problem with congress is that they act as if divorce is an option. Whenever a given party has a majority ans thinks it doesn't need the minority, it acts as if it can operate in isolation of the other party. It is a virtual divorce. and then, when the pendulum swings, its payback time.
so maybe it is an opportunity to take your expertise to washington and do marriage counseling. You might not want to, but they would sure benefit. So would anyone else who is reading thsi and is in a committed relationship. Check out Patty's wisdom at Assumelove.com
You've inspired me to blog about Edward de Bono's ideas on problem solving. There are many, many techiques that de Bono has come up with over the years. "Masterthinker" series suggested using the body's structure for remembering was fascinating. But best, (IMHO) was the first "CORT" course, which de Bono designed to be taught in schools to middle school kids in Venezuela.
The other problem is remembering to use any of these brilliant techniques while feeling intense emotions. Under duress, a person tends to forget to use creative problem solving ideas when they are most needed. Inspiration and practice helps - of which you're providing the inspiration!
David Bohm also observed that it is the debate model that is the problematic culprit, as you have also pinpointed here. His solution was Dialogue. You might be fascinated with that.
I don't agree with you that it's jumping around that is a fulcrum issue, as Dr. Fosmire also suggests. Most people can compensate for time of arrival of content. the devil is "means." Different people have different convictions about "how to go about" crafting solutions. They argue about which means to choose.
Studying the ideas of the Conative Index by Kathy Colbe helped me integrate the benefits of how different people tend to favor certain thinking strategies in job and problem solving situations.
As you pointed out - the challenge is more of a people working together problem than the actual problematic circumstance. Keep coming with more ideas about this - it more than deserves continued consideration!!
Hi Franis,
Thank you for the wonderful comments. I do know de Bono. I love anything that will cultivate creativity and creative problem solving.
I am also trained in the Dialogue process and find it deeply satisfying. In my experience the groups ability to get to the depths of communication and create a 'field' of inquiry that enables the generation of creative insight to bubble up is close to a community experience of Flow. The sense of connection and generation of 'ah ha' insights can be phenomenal.
I didn't understand what you were saying about the jumping around not being a problem. I wasn't sure what that was related to and I would love to hear more about what you meant. I look forward to your own explorations and reading what you write.
Post a Comment