Innovative Problem Solving Can't Always be Democratic

When we are in charge of a company, department, office, committee, or whatever, it carries with it a lot of pressure and responsibility. We have to walk a fine line between pleasing our leadership and our employees or associates and that doesn’t even factor in all of the other stakeholders involved. But one thing I learned along the way is that we can’t always lead by democratic rule. It’s not about what everyone wants and voting on the best solution when problems arise. It’s about doing a deep dive into the problems we are trying to solve or avoid. And exploring all opportunities for growth.

I’m all about sharing ideas and brainstorming with employees, peers, and colleagues. It gives people a purpose and also builds buy-in. It can reveal out-of-the-box thinking. When decision-making is needed, it is not always effective or practical to involve everyone, even those who are directly affected by the decision. It can slow the process down and derail decision-making. It can water down the intent and bring in opinions from people who are ill-experienced to weigh in. But worst of all it can affect the group’s individualistic ideas and thought process.

Don’t follow the herd.

Group decision-making can create a herd mentality if the problem is not framed in a way to deliver a structured process. Don’t confuse group thinking with establishing a culture. Here is what ChatGPT says about it. “Herd mentality, also known as mob mentality or crowd mentality, is a psychological phenomenon that significantly impacts human behavior. It occurs when individuals adopt the beliefs, behaviors, or attitudes of the majority in a group, often at the expense of their own judgment or individuality.”

The most obvious example is what is happening in politics. We also see it in fashion, social media, religion, and any type of trend. Let’s face it, people are easily swayed. The internet has allowed for information, true or otherwise, to be spewed about as gospel. And those that choose to believe certain narratives get fed their line of beliefs with no reality to challenge it.

So when is group decision-making effective? It works when people speak up, stick to their validated beliefs and objectively sort through all of the opinions and information with a uniform structure. But the key is to have a representation of the information from many sources and apply critical thinking. And it needs leaders who will fairly and objectively do the right thing to achieve the best outcome, not just for them. Just because making a certain decision will make everyone happy, it doesn’t mean it’s the right decision. What are the long-term effects? How does it affect the overall health of the organization or group?

Disfunction by committee.

I have been on a lot of committees and boards in my career. Some were very effective and others were a waste of time. Even if someone has a great idea, if others don’t agree or it’s too radical, it gets shoved aside and the impact of that idea will never be known if it isn’t properly explored and the goal of the committee properly defined.

A lot of group decision-making and brainstorming is ruled by fear. Industry boards that don’t want to rock the boat or branch out to try new things seem really prevalent right now. Or their decisions are self-serving. Fear of upsetting those who are perceived as key clients or the member base can really hold growth back. It takes guts to break out of the norm and stand up to a few naysayers.

While industry boards should be equally representative of their membership base, they are often weighted to a specific category or type of member. Then they no longer represent feedback from the entire body of the group. Decisions are being made in a vacuum. It can be a recipe for mediocrity and ineffectiveness. I’m not saying everyone should have a say, but all ideas from all factions should be explored for the good of the organization and its people and vetted in a structured way to achieve a favorable outcome.

I came across this article from FastCompany that described the process to brainstorm and problem solve in a really effective way. Let me know what you think:

Brainstorming is overrated. Do this instead. By Stephanie Vozza

To remain relevant or to disrupt an industry, you need to innovate. Many organizations turn to brainstorming as a method for generating new ideas, but it’s not the best way to be original, says Sheena Iyengar, author of Think Bigger: How to Innovate.

A choice scientist and professor of business in the management department at Columbia Business School, Iyengar wanted to find a better way to find new choices. She was inspired by a quote from French mathematician Henri Poincaré, who said, “Invention consists in avoiding the constructing of useless contraptions and in constructing the useful combinations which are in an infinite minority.”

“The real power of choice doesn’t come from merely the exercise of picking and finding,” she says. “The real power of choice comes from your ability to pair the exercise of picking and finding with the exercise of imagination. If you put those together, that’s what leads to the construction of the most meaningful combinations.”

To replace brainstorming, Iyengar created a six-step process she calls “choice mapping.”

1. CHOOSE THE PROBLEM

The first step is to choose a problem to solve. It sounds simple, but the problem may not be self-evident. For example, the problem may be that you need to be aware of potentially disruptive technologies. Or you may want to know how to make your current product lineup more carbon-neutral.

“Einstein once said, ‘If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions,’” says Iyengar. “Like Einstein, write and rewrite, frame and reframe your problem from myriad perspectives in order to discover the problem that is most meaningful and feasible to solve.”

2. BREAK IT DOWN

“Almost every consulting firm tries to do some kind of a problem analysis or industry analysis,” says Iyengar. “The only thing that’s different about the way I have them break it down is that I have them pay very close attention to cognitive limitations.”

To push past the limitations, break down the problem into subproblems. You may identify several but choose no more than five. Subproblems are a piece of the larger puzzle. “If you were to solve these, you’ll solve about 90% of the problem,” says Iyengar.

Breaking down the problem into subproblems becomes a thought exercise. The more meaningful and deliberate you are in the process, the better your results will be.

3. COMPARE WANTS

Next, determine what you want to feel when you solve the problem. “Most of the time when people say, ‘What do you want to achieve? What are your goals? What are your metrics?’ it becomes very objective,” says Iyengar. “We’re not objective creatures. Instead, it’s about ‘How do you want to feel?’”

For example, if you want to identify the most disruptive technology out there, is it because you want to be cool? Or is it because you want to be the richest, most powerful person on the block?

“Everybody’s got some feeling, and you might as well just surface that because that is ultimately going to serve as your selection criteria,” she says. “And if it doesn’t serve as your selection criteria, you’re never going to be motivated to take that idea.”

4. SEARCH IN AND OUT OF THE BOX

In the fourth step, Iyengar recommends creating a structured process for gathering relevant information by creating a matrix. With the problem broken down into five subproblems, find two examples of how the subproblem has been solved within your industry and three examples of how it’s been solved outside of your industry.

“Typically, when someone has a problem, they go look at what their competitors have done and they study their own area of expertise,” says Iyengar. “On a choice map, only 20% is dedicated to industry expertise. If you want out-of-the-box solutions, you have to look at what exists in other boxes.”

For example, someone in the airline industry solving problems around logistics can look at adjacent industries like other forms of transportation. Or they can look at companies in other industries, like, say, Disney.

5. CREATE A CHOICE MAP

The fifth step is choice mapping. Take one option per subproblem and determine how you could combine them to create a new solution.

“You have so many possible options that you can be combining,” says Iyengar. “No two people imagine the same thing given the same materials. Look at the choices separately, not in the same room. That’s how you’re going to get real diversity.”

6. DO THE ‘THIRD EYE TEST‘

Choice mapping can create thousands of unique solutions. Compare your wants to get a big picture score, then use your big picture score to identify your top five different ideas. But don’t stop here, says Iyengar.

“You’re still a bias-making machine,” she says. “You know your idea is great in your head, but you don’t really know what that idea means once it gets out of your head.”

Avoid posting your idea on a forum where you might get likes or dislikes. Instead, describe your idea to someone and ask for them to repeat it back to you.

“What you need to know is what are they seeing?” says Iyengar. “When they tell your idea back to you, what stuck? What did they edit out in the retelling of your idea? Maybe they reframed it and added some interesting tidbits that you didn’t even think about. You’ll get valuable information on how to further edit my idea.”

Iyengar says brainstorming is the golden child for coming up with ideas, but most ideas suck. “Instead, you need to teach people how to come up with good quality ideas, and in particular, how to evaluate them,” she says. “The key is creating choices. Multiple choices don’t come from giving people pure freedom. You get your best choices through structure and constraints.”

 “A camel is a horse designed by a committee.” ~Sir Alec Issigonis, a British-Greek automotive designer.