Solution Bias

There’s no surprise in feeling chronically busy all the time, but perhaps the surprise is the fact we’re busy doing the wrong things. If that’s true, it makes the fatigue of our busyness ten times worse. For at least we console ourselves by saying that the sacrifice is worth it. However, the intensity of the pain really isn’t noble if it boils down to poor stewardship of our time and energy. So what might make us reappraise our working habits?

Shane Parrish, former CIA operative, in his book Clear Thinking, makes the case that we pour our time out on problems that aren’t the central issue, and so it’s no surprise that we don’t make the progress or grow the margin we think we will. The reason for this chronic misdiagnosis, according to Parrish, is the social phenomenon known as ‘Solution Bias’. This is where in a meeting designed to find a solution to a particular situation, the first credible definition or diagnosis of the problem is likely to become the accepted reality of the group.

The reason Parrish gives for this hasty short-cut is that we find sitting with problems uncomfortable and we’d much prefer to be optimistically discussing potential solutions. The pattern is understandable but its consequences can be devastating. Time, energy and resources spent in the wrong direction, in the context of the easily disillusioned context that many of us operate in, can make re-tracing the steps, doing a U-turn or admitting error, or worse – “We don’t know what to do!”, very hard, and galvanizing yet more enthusiasm to move forward even harder.

What then might be the solution to this inbuilt bias towards reductionist problem diagnosis? Parrish offers a simple but fiendishly difficult to employ guardrail: never hold a meeting that combines problem definition and solution finding. Rather, suggests Parrish, have two meetings, one to thoroughly explore the issue from multiple angles until the group is clear and agreed on the root problem, and a second meeting to explore the potential solutions.

There is a particularly contemporary logic to this intentional slowing of the decision making process, in that leaders operate in an ever more complex and integrated environment. Keith Grint, Professor of Public Leadership and Management at Warwick Business School, describes how we used to predominantly face ‘Tame Problems’, that is, issues that could largely be fixed by throwing additional staff, time, or money at the situation. Yet, now in the complex, global society we live in, we face an increase in ‘Wicked Problems’; these are issues that cannot be fixed with more staff, time or money, but instead require a careful multiplicity of sudoku-esq decisions influencing a number of variables to improve a situation. The complexity of this contemporary environment lends itself to a slower and more considered problem solving methodology that shifts emphasis on to problem definition in the belief that, should the diagnosis be discerned with clarity, the solution part of the equation will follow with greater confidence.

My personal leadership development goal this year is to separate meetings and collaborative projects into two distinct gatherings: problem definition and solution finding. The risk of course, is that meeting times will simply increase. However, given the fact that my former decision making strategies haven’t yielded more personal margin but often seem to grow my to do list, it’s worth a try – unless of course I’ve misdiagnosed the problem!