3 problem-solving pitfalls that can derail conflict resolution
Good problem-solving process is like a reliable GPS, helping us navigate a difficult conversation coherently.
Like a reliable GPS, good process orients us to where we are, guides us around obstructions, and helps us reach our destination safely.
Without a coherent roadmap, complex conversations can become convoluted, sidetracked, and stuck. This is one reason organizations hire facilitators for important discussions and why masterful mediators highly value good process. Unglamorous though good process may be, it’s an essential dimension of disagreeing better.
Good problem-solving process is a big topic, but you can have a positive impact on a difficult conversation by avoiding these three process pitfalls:
Pitfall 1: Solving different problems
One reason disagreements get complicated is that not everyone is solving the same problem. It seems obvious that everyone should be solving the same problem, but I can tell you that this is not universally the case in conflict situations.
For instance, Elena and Sam sound like they’re arguing about Elena’s nagging Sam to finish projects he’s committed to. When we dig deeper, we discover that Elena is trying to solve the problem of “How to get Sam to be less passive-aggressive,” while Sam is trying to solve the problem of “How to get Elena off my back.”
A committee leader may be solving the problem of “how to get the team fully on board with my idea,” while committee members are solving the problem of “how to get the chair to listen to us.” Like trains on separate tracks, these differing problems lead to different destinations for each problem-solver.
Problem-finding is discovering and naming (“framing”) a shared problem that, when sorted out, will provide relief.
A problem well stated is a problem half solved.
JOHN DEWEY
Taking the time to problem-find carefully is more efficient over the long run because it will save you from the separate train tracks problem.
For Elena and Sam, a problem that could get them on the same train track might be “How to handle concerns about a project’s progress” or “What to do when we have different timelines in mind for a project.”
For the committee, a problem that could get them working on the same train track might be, “What to do when there’s disagreement about a proposal when a problem is very pressing,” or “How we want to process ideas for sound decisions.”
Of course, the best problem frame will depend heavily on the unique factors and situation, so there’s no single “right” problem frame you can use repeatedly. So, the problem frames I offered are just examples of possibilities.
Use these practices to avoid Pitfall 1:
Ask, “If you solve this problem, what would it do for you?” This is a good question for helping find the shared problem that matters.
Focus on actionable problems, not gravity problems. Actionable problems are problems you can do something about, while gravity problems are circumstances that just are, like gravity.
Find the problem’s primary drivers. This will help you discover the underlying problem influencing other issues, helping you focus on the useful problem to solve.
Pitfall 2: Moving too hastily through the Groan Zone
A farmer headed down a bumpy, pothole-ridden dirt road with a cart filled to the brim with freshly picked apples. Passing a gentleman headed in the other direction, he asked, “How long will it take me to get to market headed this way?” The other fellow looked at the cart full of apples, then down at the dirt road. “An hour if you go slowly,” he replied, “and all day if you go fast.”
Problem-solving in disagreements is like this: It feels efficient to drive hard toward a solution, but moving too quickly on important or complex problems can prevent you from understanding them deeply enough to find the most optimal solution. The result of hurrying can be needing to revisit the problem later. And again later. And again later.
Slowing down and getting it right the first time is more efficient.
If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about the solutions.
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Use these practices to avoid Pitfall 2:
Familiarize yourself and others with the Groan Zone. The Groan Zone is that tricky, uncomfortable stage in problem-solving where things feel messy, even hopeless. Knowing that the Groan Zone is a normal stage in problem-solving can reduce the hurry to get out of there.
Ask, “What else do we need to know or understand about this problem?” Use this question before diving into options and solutions.
Pitfall 3: Falling in love with the first decent solution that comes along
Two problems arise when you move too quickly to adopt a decent solution.
The first is that you may miss better solutions that come up if given the chance. If you’ve ever participated in a well-run brainstorming session, you may have noticed that there’s initially a rush of ideas, then a noticeable lull. If you had a savvy facilitator, they made you wait out that uncomfortable lull instead of ending the exercise. On the other side of that lull is often a bevy of creative, wise, and daring ideas.
The second risk is failure to give reasonable consideration to alternatives. When management professor Paul C. Nutt looked at how leaders make decisions, he found that very few bother to uncover and evaluate multiple alternatives before choosing. Instead, most fall in love pretty quickly with one option. He identified this habit as a significant reason some decisions fail.
Decision makers rarely give anything but a single idea serious consideration before a choice is made. Four of five decision makers consider just one idea before acting.
PAUL C. NUTT, WHY DECISIONS FAIL
Use these practices to avoid Pitfall 3:
Mitigate the Einstellung Effect. When we see features of a problem that remind us of similar problems we’ve solved in the past, the first solutions that come to mind tend to follow similar lines. Those first ideas get in the way of finding better solutions because they prime us to think in a certain way. This cognitive trap, known as the Einstellung Effect, is avoidable with just a few simple prompts (see link).
Test solutions with a premortem. Nobel laureate Daniel Kahnemann championed the premortem because it helps us avoid groupthink and legitimizes the expression of doubt.
Over to you
Here are some journaling / conversation / comment prompts for your consideration:
Have you experienced any of these pitfalls?
When you fall into one of these traps, what circumstances cause that to happen?
If you pick one of these pitfalls to avoid, what specifically will you do? (It’s better to do something than to try not to do something.)
Do you work with someone whose problem-solving process frustrates you? How could you address this with them?