Exploring the Problem

In this situation, Abe (a manager) is bringing a potential problem to the attention of his staff. His goal is not to solve it, but just to find out whether it really is a problem worthy of time and effort. He is in the exploratory phase of problem solving. The commentary on the right side highlights some of the key steps Abe is taking to guide the group.

ABE: It seems that our on time performance on our client projects is slipping. Any thoughts on what's going on?

BOB: I wouldn't worry about it; it's just normal variance.

CHARLIE: I think it's disgraceful! We're making promises to customers and we're not following through!

DON: Are the customers complaining? Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill here.

ABE: Customers complain no matter what we do. I'm more interested in what we think.

BOB: I always thought it was just the cost of getting bigger. We've done well, we've grown, and we're naturally a little more sluggish.

ABE: With all this experience, why aren't we getting better?

CHARLIE: Well, I'm worried. "Sluggish" hardly seems like a step forward.

It's typical that people aren't even sure if there is a problem, much less how big it is. Such discussion are critical, even if they are occasionally rather loopy.

Abe is wise to pull the group back to their own thoughts before letting them reach out for some external definition of the situation. He asks questions that are meant to provoke new ideas rather than signaling his agreement or disagreement with the thoughts offered so far.

ABE: Charlie, what worries you?

CHARLIE: Well, if we get any worse, I think it would tarnish our reputation. If customers start to doubt our word on delivery schedules, why wouldn't they also doubt our word on quality?

DON: See, this is what I meant by "making a mountain out of a molehill"; we slip on a few schedules and you've got us turning into sleazy businessmen selling shoddy products.

ABE: Don, let's not decide whether Charlie's right or wrong, let's just hear the different opinions among us. What's your thought?

DON: I think our customers understand that delivery dates are a "best guess" and there's a lot of variables that could easily change the date.

ABE: So one thought is that we're damaging our reputation by being so late in deliveries, and a different perspective is that our customers are neither surprised nor bothered by a slipped delivery date because they understand it's a complex matter. Any other perspectives?

It is easy for these conversations to turn into debates. Abe is careful to keep the group from coming to consensus before the full range of opinion is out in the open.

Notice that he uses occasional summaries to both acknowledge peoples' contributions, and to distance the person from the position taken. This is not a case of "Charlie vs. Don".

ESTHER: I've been listening to you guys and I think you're all nuts.

ABE: You don't have to be shy, Esther. Tell us what you think.

ESTHER: Well, I don't think our on-time performance — which is clearly slipping — is worth any time at all. Those of us in Legal are watching younger sales people going up against less sophisticated purchasing agents, and it's the contracting process that's eroding, not any internal delivery capability.

ABE: So a third perspective is that slipping on-time delivery is a distant symptom of a problem much farther up stream. Let's talk a little longer, and then I'll ask each of you to reflect on the ideas we've expressed and we'll revisit the topic at our next meeting.

Abe's attempt at humor is more than just stylistic. These early discussions can be frustrating, even conflicted. There are lots of different viewpoints; and openness of the agenda invites everyone to bring in their favorite concern. A little humor works like social grease, helping keep the tone light enough to be fluid and nimble.

Abe also puts some structure around the discussion. It is not important to come to closure; it is more important to explore and reflect.