Special Process for Dangerous Problems

At other points on this site, we have characterized the problem solving process as having 3 broad parts:

1. Exploring the Problem
2. Sculpting Options
3. Implementing Solutions

While that characterization works well for Basic Problems and Mysterious Problems, we run into a new wrinkle in Dangerous Problems. For the first series of problem types, the problem is in the world, and it exists whether we humans see it, acknowledge it, or deal with it.

For dangerous problems, the problem is in the people, and a significant shift in perception, understanding, or conceptual framework would have a profound impact on the problem.

This is not at all to minimize such matters. For the participants, these problems are as real and as threatening as any other. The difference is that resolution does not come from dealing with the outer world, but with the inner world. In some ways, that is a much more treacherous terrain.

For that reason, the problem solving process is more about relationships than about analyzing the external world. We would suggest the following variation on a theme for this class of problems.

Before launching directly into the relationships among the participants, part of this phase is asking whether there is an authority figure capable of forcing participants to deal with each other in new ways, or decide the outcome, or provide resolution in the event of a deadlock.

A second question is whether there is a neutral party acceptable to all parties who can support interaction without any investment in the outcome.

Only with those issues settled, should you wade into exploring the relationships among the participants. Is there even consensus on who are the participants? What are the current relationships among the stakeholders? Are there any stakeholders who can sabotage the entire group or veto any progress toward a solution? If so, how can they be engaged more productively?

As with problems in the world, the need here is for creativity. How might the players relate to each other? What new roles can we imagine? How could a neutral player be defined? Facilitator? Mediator? Arbiter? Witness? Diplomat? Consultant? Historian?

With those new roles in mind, what would the sequence of behavior look like? What understandings would need to be in place? What forum or venue would support the best interaction?

Bringing people together in new roles and initiating a novel sequence of interaction can be a delicate task. Everything becomes symbolic and important. The room arrangement. Sharing food. Recording technologies. All of them are part of launching new relationships.

Once launched, the group will need to adjust agreements "on the fly". They will also need to ensure compliance to the new agreements and roles.