HACKING BEHAVIORS THAT UNDERMINE COLLECTIVE THINKING
Collective problem-solving has become a way of life in many work settings. Most public-sector and private-sector organizations have embraced rational problem-solving models to tackle production defects and lean manufacturing issues with the aim of improving or removing processes that do not add value. Unfortunately, many organizations have come away unhappy. Recent studies, for example, indicate that nearly 60% of all corporate improvement and change initiatives fail to yield expected results. (Chakravorty, 2010) (Harrington, 1999).
Individual Perceptions Of Reality
We live in a world where individual notions about reality create differences that can challenge civil discourse and the ability to solve problems collectively. Individual awareness, the way experiences are felt and interpreted, plays a sizeable role in the choices people make. The depth of experience, a person’s exposure to life’s events, both structured and serendipitous, influences what will be learned, stored, and recalled when individuals are asked to solve problems and make decisions.
Most people recognize that others view and comprehend the world in diverse ways. All of us gather information and make decisions about events according to different patterns. These paradigms are part of an individual’s persona and are the result of early experiences and socialization that become a fundamental but innate way of resolving issues. This individualized thinking can produce decisions that may be risky and later open to questioning by those impacted by presumed beneficial corrective actions. The following are several reasons for behavior failures.
1. Insecurity and animosity
A major culprit, it appears, can be the perception by some people that they are lacking in some way and not appreciated. Research shows this feeling of deprivation is often a trigger for a wide range of questionable behaviors. Feeling unfulfilled and fed-up with their circumstances, wanting to feel better about themselves, these individuals will readily try to level the playing field and reconstruct it for their advantage. Unfortunately, the instinctive reach for contentment also subdues old standards and allows individuals, without feeling guilty, to produce reasons to justify their shift in conduct. (Janse, 2020) (Schultz, 2020).
2. Being a malcontent has power
For some individuals, the struggle for ideas is personal. The underlying motivation is about not losing face, maintaining personal freedoms, and exercising power. (Schultz, 2020). For these individuals’ options are not a consideration. They know that being obstructive and being contrary can slow or stall progress toward unwanted change. The goal is gridlock. Unfortunately, other group members can become discouraged and may begin to look for excuses to miss meetings or just sit back and watch.
In a team setting where collective problem-solving and decision-making are the objective, frustrated individuals can become contrary and obstructive. Grousing skeptics displaying obsessive and troublesome behavior where heuristics and opinion are presented as acceptable alternatives to fact. Often stressing the view that “perception is reality.” Then using that adage as a stick to beat others into accepting a version of events that is fundamentally flawed.
3. Data are an inconvenient source of information
Problem-solving and decision-making are subject to numerous pressures that include both time and resource constraints. The desire and need to make decisions are typically burdened by the requirement to get something done quickly and at the lowest possible cost. So, data gathering, organizing, and analyzing become chores that can be disparaged and weakened by those who want to be decisive and timely based on their understanding of events.
Problem-solvers, when confronted with an issue, immediately start looking for answers. Bolstered by hubris, overconfidence in intuition, and personal diagnostic ability, problem-solving becomes an exercise where the issue gets confronted, and an answer divined through mostly guesswork and hunch. Unwittingly, decision-makers then jump to an unrefined conclusion that underserves the current complexity causing failure to occur. Team members have rolled the dice, challenged probability, and lost the bet. The result leaves an ongoing difficulty that gives others the opportunity to criticize the use of teams and collective decision-making.
A 30 Year Case Study
For a little over 30 years, I taught and facilitated a five-day seminar where teams were asked to solve a case study using structured problem-solving and meeting management tools to develop an economically viable solution. Attendees were randomly assigned to five-person teams, given instruction on team management and meeting management, instruction on problem-solving and decision-making, and then asked to unravel the twists and turns of the case study by managing their own affairs.
The study had a storyline that was supported by memos, anecdotal information, survey data, and observable and measurable data. The information was presented as charts, graphs, and spreadsheets that required further manipulation to create meaningful information. Each team was supported by a coach who served as a tutor, mentor, and in some cases, a referee. (Schultz, 2017).
About 20 percent of teams were able to, collectively, with a minimum of struggle and conflict, negotiate the maze of information and produce a solution that met requirements for cost and downtime. The remaining 80 percent needed varying degrees of support to produce answers that ranged from reasonable to imaginative but barely met requirements.
The teams that performed poorly had differing degrees of difficulty with relationship conflict and issues over the use of data. Members, being under time constraints, realized that the task and conditions were more difficult than anticipated. Anxiety over self-image and ability to complete tasks made participants testy and defensive. Rather than being collaborative, individuals became more self-reliant and dependent upon their own perceptions. Data were treated as an inconvenient information source because organizing and analyzing took time. Personal heuristics were preferred as the method for making sense of charts, histograms, and spreadsheets. The resulting product was foreseeably low quality.
Successful teams, on the other hand, focused more on task issues. Self-image and a tendency toward self-reliance were less of a problem. Members had a sense of cohesion, were able to work within ground rules, take on various operational roles, and accept other’s individuality. There was insight into personal and group behaviors and a better understanding of each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Participants were able to prevent or work through group problems. Most notable was the realization that data had power, the capability to tell a story once the underlying measurements were arrayed and analyzed. Data were considered a convenient truth.
There are lessons here that give a hint concerning why some groups are better than others at decision-making and able to solve complex problems. It has a lot to do with self-perception and the ability to adapt, be flexible, and work through change. The following discussion examines some practices that can help with effective decision-making.
Conflict is not something that can be easily avoided no matter how much effort goes into trying to reduce it. The best approach is to embrace it, manage it, and use the drama to increase energy and creativity toward decisions that produce results. Making that happen, however, takes effort and experience. It's not a game for timid souls. Too often individual egos get in the way and teams become bogged down with relationship issues.
Effective Decision-Making
Most people understand that the world is not a neat and orderly place, that day-to-day activity is buffeted by complexity, and that success often means finding a reasonable course of action for challenging situations. However, people in decision-making positions often provide answers that are shaped by intuition; sometimes gut feeling, or far too often comparisons that assign judgment based upon the amount of negative or positive movement in financial information at a particular point in time. Although authoritative, such guidance for action can be mostly a gamble.
Unfortunately, using judgment that is based on philosophy, intuition, or opinion can be subject to counterbalancing opinion where all involved, feeling correctly justified, will steadfastly insist that their answer holds precedent. Who is right in this situation? How can such an impasse be resolved? It cannot, because each person, buoyed by an absolute belief in their perceived reality, feels they are right.
The push and shove over competing views, however, need not stall the search for an answer. Alternatively, there are things that can be done to moderate pressures on decision-makers and encourage the use of verifiable information when trying to collectively solve problems. Good decisions are not the result of individual intelligence or providential thinking. Good decisions are the result of process and the intelligent use of data.
Recommended by LinkedIn
1. Decision-making works best as a collective effort
Decision-making, though typically attributed to confident and insightful individuals, works best as a collaborative process. The range of feedback can serve as a check and balance where other eyes and minds can challenge reasoning and the chain of events that lead to conclusions. Although complex, collective relationships can help with idea formation by facilitating questioning that clarifies reasoning. Exchanges of this type, while challenging, are helpful in reducing sloppy or circular thinking to bring about a revised focus.
Discussion, when effectively managed, often prompts changes that encourage reexamination and retesting of ideas to uncover an entirely new perspective. When consideration is stalled, inputs from differing points of view can energize rethinking to expand knowledge and advantage new insight. Decision-making is more than a manifestation of collective wisdom. It is a combination of extrinsic interactions and intrinsic vexations that ultimately find a mental balance to produce a completely new reality. When there is a continual interplay between individual ideation and collective provocations, the resulting solution has a better chance of finding success. Yes, really, based on research, collective thinking produces better outcomes. (Grant, 2021).
2. Ask good questions
Remember the purpose of questioning is to find answers that can move a stalled conversation in a productive direction. Often, inflexible team members can be less than articulate, and less than clear in their own minds, about what it is they want or need in terms of evidence or a more compatible position. Understanding, and gaining genuine insight, should be the intention of a participant’s queries. It’s better to ask a few directed questions rather than tolerate an offhand answer. Background questions can be the start of a more balanced exchange. (Grant, 2021) (Scholtes, Joiner, & Streibel, 2003).
Concurrent to questioning is purposeful listening. Listening is focusing undivided attention on exploring the other person’s viewpoint. Understanding the underlying what, where, when, who, and how of someone else’s thinking. When trying to open another’s mind to new possibilities, show interest and concern for their position. Start by concentrating on the meaning behind words, not on what might be said next. Look for common ground, a pivot point where agreement over a portion of the other person’s position can focus discussion on a new direction. The goal should be actionable change and not winning the current debate. Think long-term and consider how a different interpretation might lead to a workable reality.
In addition, do not overdo it. Too much probing can seem like an inquisition. Where there is common ground, acknowledge it. Admitting there are areas of accord doesn’t put anyone in a down position. It shows a willingness to listen, consider, and negotiate over what the final approach might look like.
3. Act like a researcher
Long-term improvement does not happen because individual decision-makers are instinctive and perceptive thinkers, but because of careful pragmatic work where data are gathered, causes identified, potential fixes evaluated, and improvements are deliberately implemented. Both problem-solving and decision-making, where outcomes continually produce meaningful results, come from rational methodologies using purposeful strategies and the power of data to reach conclusions.
Decision-making means having to make choices, having to decide between several courses of action. One of the toughest things to avoid, in this case, is making the wrong choice, that is, drawing the wrong conclusion and not comprehending the true nature of existing conditions. So, an understanding based on measurement and study, the gathering of facts, helps sort out cause-and-effect relationships and reduces the chance of moving in a mistaken direction.
To be of value, data must be relevant, reliable, and representative. Data can come from observations or opinions but should be measured at various points over time and at various locations to ensure validity. Selected measures should produce results that are consistent and reliable each time a measurement is made.
Observational data come from processes or situations that are measured and categorized using numerical counts. The result is information available for analysis by quantitative techniques. Opinion data, on the other hand, are survey data derived by evaluating the choices between several points of view. The responses are weighted, then aggregated and analyzed using statistical methods.
Sound decisions have several components. These are: (1) quality, and (2) commitment. Both contingencies are critical to securing answers that will support meaningful choices and actionable change. A quality decision is one that is based on quantifiable facts that are verifiable and produce the same answer each time a query is made regardless of the individuals involved. Commitment, however, means there is an agreement about the authenticity and validity of underlying facts, as well as the deliberative process used to uncover a potential solution.
Preparing to Make Decisions
Decision-making is a practice that can be standardized and managed like other processes by using familiar techniques. Preparation should start by defining ground rules for engagement and developing an open and more compromising mental attitude. Easier said than done, however. So, decision-makers should spend upfront time getting acquainted where expectations for results are focused on how members will work together.
Study after study has shown that argument and unchecked conflict between group members is the harbinger of low performance. (Grant, 2021). Typically, people buoyed by the certainty of their thinking, take positions where they are unable to back down. Shielded by their own internal filters and overconfident with pride in their acuity, disputing individuals often refuse to accept information that does not support personal convictions. Accepting another position is viewed as a failure, a loss of face, and a step down in relationship status. A disagreement over ideas and how to approach the prevailing task can quickly deteriorate into personal provocations and actions to maintain the upper hand.
A group that is engaged in collective decision-making needs to recognize that individual biases, insecurities, and animosities, are learned behaviors that must be managed and controlled for reasons of respect and the prospects of a shared resolution. It is perfectly fine to get excited and disagreeable, but it is not fine to get angry and obstructive. Being asked for clarification or evidence should not lead to a personal struggle over mental deftness. The process should be about finding new insights that will allow everyone the chance to rethink possibilities so there can be a breakout resolution.
It is not wrong to be wrong. If this were the case, humankind would still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe. Decision-makers need to recognize that most of us are wrong more than we would like to admit and that those at the top of their game have down days just like everybody else. Mistakes get made, but those who survive without feeling devastated have learned to accept being wrong is normal. They adjust, recover, and move on. That is what collective decision-making is all about. Creating a condition that facilitates active discussion yet civilized and helpful behavior. A way of looking for answers that is the result of debate, a reciprocal relationship that does not get bogged down in right-fighting.
Making It All Work
Refocusing on the project’s purpose and completion objectives is one way to disrupt the destructive cycle that develops when team members begin to attack one another over character issues. Although there may be an instinctive response toward over-managing behavior by silencing or removing overbearing participants, there is a larger potential of producing a product that lacks real insight. The following is an example.
A team leader, under pressure to develop a program review and evaluation method so her college could fulfill accreditation requirements, eliminated team members who routinely expressed contrary views. After several delays, the job of course got done but was perceived as flawed by the accrediting agency’s team of examiners. The entire process of self-review, controlled in the name of positive thinking, ignored divergent voices. The result was a less-than-stellar report that required further action. (Schultz, 2011).
In summary, these are actions that can be taken to manage and embrace the tendency toward conflict as a method to increase creativity. The struggle over ideas wards off group thinking is necessary to encourage the search for added information and is critical to reexamining issues that do not support an evolving discussion.
The goal is civil debate, a give-and-take discussion, which leads to a decision where outcomes meet previously defined objectives. The process can be freewheeling but should be deliberative where facts are the means for consideration and rational problem-solving is the structure. It’s not about being tactical, winning in the short-term. It’s about being strategic, creating change that has common appeal, where there is meaningful benefit for all involved.