Start with the problem, not the solution
Here's a post that's been mulling around in my brain for a while: Why do people jump straight to the end of the decision process, rather than working through from the beginning?
As an association communicator, I've seen this play out more than once. Someone comes to me and says, "We need a brochure/new publication/book/website/blog." I ask why, and they give reasons ranging from sharing information with members to promoting a profession to the public, and many things in between. Unfortunately, then solution they've chosen isn't the best one, for whatever reason; perhaps it's more expensive than they realize, perhaps it's not the best vehicle to accomplish their goal. But when I try to explain this, the person angrily says that I'm just being a naysayer.
Wouldn't it work so much better if we started with the problem instead of the solution? Let's start with "We want to promote our profession to the public. No one knows what our members do, and their work is important. How do we raise awareness?" From there, there are a number of directions you can go--almost infinite options, depending on the budget and time available. But when you start with "We want a book" or "We need a blog," there are only two real answers--yes or no. And when the answer needs to be no, it can create bad feeling.
I'm thinking that the same rule can be applied outside the realm of communications, too. What if your board president comes to you and says, "We need to launch a new specialty conference in a resort location." There may be all sorts of reasons to say no, which can put you in an awkward position. But if your board had committed to starting with problems instead of solutions, you could start with "Our last member survey shows that Specialist Group X in our membership is dissatisfied with the options at our annual meeting, and I've spoken with several members in that specialty who are very interested in meeting with their peers in an exclusive location. What can we do to increase that group's satisfaction?" Then you look at your options--which may include a specialty conference.
Admittedly, you can still end up with a solution that won't please everyone (that happens no matter what), and you may still wind up saying "no." But going through the process gives everyone an opportunity to feel heard and to buy in to the eventual decision.
| | Permalink |
Comments
Everything you say makes sense. My most persistent communications problems occur when I/we leapfrog over the analysis to design a solution.
However - one of the dichotomies among people is that some want to hear the bottom line first, and then go through the thinking- if they have the patience. Then there are others who are willing to walk the journey with you to identity the problem, then the barriers, then the opportunities, and then to the solution(s).
You could try to change how people think, but it's really time consuming and possibly fruitless. They've trained themselves to think a certain way, and it's produced results for them. So I've concluded that my job as a communciator is to train myself to speak to both styles of listening.
I first identify who's in what camp. Then I ask myself, "What do they need to hear to actually listen to what I'm saying?" I then design my conversations accordingly.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But my batting average is a LOT better than if I hadn't taken that approach.
Posted by: Frank Fortin | May 23, 2008 9:32 AM
In the discipline of systems thinking, there is a tool called the Ladder of Inference that relates to what you have described. People have inferred a solution through several layers of their own thinking and we can often make richer decisions by getting to the fundamental data we are observing that leads us to believe something needs to be done in the first place.
http://www.systems-thinking.org/loi/loi.htm
Posted by: Jeffrey Cufaude | May 23, 2008 10:37 AM
Nice post, Lisa. I hear this discussed a lot in terms of adopting social media--start with objectives, not technology. But you're right. It's happening in every department in a variety of ways.
Frank - I like your approach and I often try to do the same thing--to tailor my arguments to the bias of the person I'm trying to convince. It works well one-on-one, but it's trickier in a group setting. Plus, I'm not sure it's a skill everyone can develop. Next time we see each other, maybe you can give me some pointers. ;-)
Jeffrey - Thanks for the link. I've been on a data-mining rant on my blog, so the "short-circuiting reality" bit is really funny to me.
Posted by: Lindy Dreyer | May 23, 2008 11:47 AM
Frank: Great point. You do have to meet people where they live, and sometimes trying to force them out of their usual mode of thought just isn't going to work. I suppose I was imagining this as a cultural thing in an organization; deciding as a group that we will do our best to start with problems instead of solutions--and that if we do jump to a solution and someone else calls us on it, we'll say, "You're right, I did jump right over the problem, didn't I?" I don't know if it would work, but it might be a shared value or ground rule some organizations could get behind.
Jeffrey: Thank you so much for sharing that! It's a great graphical way to show why there are so many communication problems, when one person in the room missed some of the steps in the ladder of inference or took different steps altogether.
Lindy: Thank you for your comment. You're right, adding the element of group discussion makes this even trickier.
Posted by: Lisa Junker | May 23, 2008 12:57 PM
Like Linday said, start with objectives, not solutions. This is true anywhere in life. You see this a LOT in technology, where the buyer says "I need an email system," and the vendor says "We can build that," and there's never any discussion about WHY you need an email system. What are you trying to accomplish.
Starting with the end in mind (what does success look like?) is the best place to start.
Posted by: Wes Trochlil | May 23, 2008 1:11 PM
Lisa -- great post! You are right-on that this type of situation tends to force a "yes/no" decision, and can be particularly challenging when you are the one who is saying "no". There are some great tools from the field of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) designed for this type of situation, a few of which I wrote about in "Looking for a Response Between ‘No’ and ‘Yes’? Try CPS", a June 2006 sidebar I wrote for the AMC Connection newsletter.
http://www.asaecenter.org/PublicationsResources/EnewsletterArticleDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=18609
Posted by: Greg Melia, CAE | May 27, 2008 12:27 PM