And what if we were wrong in the way we solve complex problems?

According to the 2020 Future of Jobs Report published by the World Economic Forum on October 21, 2020, problem solving is at the top of the list of essential skills for the years to come. 

And sadly, our current state of affairs confirms it… Who amongst us has not had to resolve new or complex problems, to find new solutions, whether it be in our professional or personal lives? 

And who amongst us has formed a solution to these complex problems?

Our first reflex is to approach our problems with the linear, mathematical strategy that we learned at school, meaning that we search for the causes of the problem that needs to be solved. 

If this mathematical reasoning can be adapted when the problem is situated in a simple and predictable environment, unfortunately, it is not applicable when the problem that needs solving is situated in a complex and unpredictable context, as is the case with the world we live in. 

Contrarily to what we tend to believe based on methods like Lean 6 sigma, Ishikawa Diagrams (also known as cause-and-effect diagrams), or SPRI (Situation-Problem-Resolution-Information), the identification of causes will not always be the most direct nor the most effective way of finding a solution to a problem which springs from a complex and unpredictable environment. 

Looking for causes has three undeniable benefits:

•          Finding "excuses" or identifying "culprits"; 

•          Emerging from the denial in which we are trapped: if a blatant cause does not jump out at us, it becomes difficult to deny the problem;

•          Generating empathy and gaining the confidence of our interlocuteur, the risk being to not take the steps to get better (which can happen in therapy)

But in searching for causes, we ignore the domino effect, which is impossible to analyze because it has generated systemic complexities, imbued with subjectivity. In any case, at best, searching for causes will waste time, and, at worst, it will lead us away from the best solution. 

The most effective way of finding a solution to a problem, especially when it is complexe and occurring from an unpredictable environment, is to deliberate with numerous people and to reflect in a systematic way (and not alone in a linear way, which is how we would resolve a mathematical problem), to identify different stakeholders (making sure not to forget about them) and to analyze with lucidity (meaning to respect their subjectivity) the needs and the current objectives (not their problems, and even less, their causes) of each stakeholder.  

It means leaving the past in order to turn towards the future by looking at the present reality with clarity. In other words, it is integrating different subjective representations. 

The imposed visualization of a large number of collected information will help our analysis. It will protect us from misguided analytical shortcuts provoked by our inevitable cognitive biases (for example, by default, we give more importance to elements that boost our convictions; the visualization of different points of view will minimize this obstacle).  

The objective is to identify and analyze the individual and collective needs and objectives, then to identify their convergences and tensions while sticking as close to reality as possible, as unpleasant as it may be. 

It is possible, therefore, to formulate a problem that needs solving (How to obtain A while taking into account B, C, D, etc…?) and to draw on collective intelligence and creativity in order to find solutions, which should be developed, challenged, and confronted based on the reality of the situation so as to improve. 

At the beginning of the second lock-down, we had in France an example of problem solving which came about in a very spontaneous way, without wasting time analyzing causes, as much as the challenge was important for those who initiated it. 

Small businesses, notably bookstores, did not take a long time to think about the reasons for the freeze in sales activity. Knowing the first causes, identifying the culprits or even fighting against discriminative measures would have gotten them nowhere on the short term for their economic survival.  

What did they do? Based on their essential needs (maintaining their activity) as well as on the needs of different stakeholders, especially their clients (responding to their demands) but also their suppliers (maintaining the supply chain), they integrated constraints, primarily the closure of their sails spaces, and they imagined the implementation of a system called "click and collect". They also demonstrated their flexibility by experimenting with creative solutions and without unnecessary dithering.  

Generally, we ask the question: when we’ve had to solve problems and make important decisions, did we act based on causality (due to certain things) or based on finality (in order to attain something)? And, finally, which reasoning was the most appropriate? 

Aurélie Marchal, November 18th 2020, translated from https://www.forbes.fr/management/et-si-on-se-trompait-dans-la-maniere-de-resoudre-nos-problemes-complexes/