Solution-Building™: An Introduction, Part 3

In the previous two posts I have discussed commitment, objectivity, and courtesy and have talked about how we can work with people we do not, or perhaps do not believe we do or can, like. Let’s talk about attitude now.

By attitude, I mean personal attitude, what a participant brings with them to the group. Clearly, commitment, objectivity, and courtesy are part of attitude but there is more, of course. When we are involved in an effort to examine a situation and make decisions, recommendations, plans, or offer solutions, we can be tempted to enter the process with our own ideas of what the result should look like, usually based on our ideas. 

This amounts to going into the process with a personal agenda. In altogether too many instances that personal agenda is to either get the participant’s way or, if they are not able to do that, block any other outcome. This is contrary to commitment, objectivity, and courtesy. It is also a very effective way to prevent the group from making any decision based on a rational look at all the possibilities. 

This is actually a thorny issue since many of us go into these situations with some ideas as to how to solve the issue or problem and what decisions may be needed. This is good, in fact, because it indicates we have given the issue some thought, assuming it has been defined ahead of time, and are coming with ideas. The trick is not to be convinced that we have “the answer” as a result of our thinking. Or don’t fall so in love with our ideas that we lose our objectivity and cannot see the value in other ideas or flaws in our own. This is ownership and when we take that to the extreme we can close our minds to other ideas.

Most of us think we have good, or at least reasonable, ideas. In order to get to really effective group decisions, we need to understand that others have pretty good ideas, too. We also have to realize that we may not have all the pieces of the puzzle and that the pieces we are missing, meaning the information we do not have, may encourage us to rethink our ideas, possibly even tossing them out, in part or in whole. This, of course, is the objective caveat I mentioned two posts ago.

How do we maintain that objectivity? The approach of Solution-Building is to give up ownership of our ideas when we offer them up to the group.

When we do not “own” an idea or proposal it becomes much easier to look at it objectively and dispassionately. We can examine it from all sides, just the way we might examine an idea offered by any other member of the group. We can see where it can advance the discussion and how it can help move down the path toward workable decisions and recommendations. 

Or how it cannot. 

When we no longer own an idea, its flaws can be seen more clearly and then rationally discussed and debated. If we have truly given up ownership, and are committed, objective, and courteous, we can accept those flaws.

Is this easy? In our competitive business environment, an environment in which there is ambition and competition for position, recognition, credit, and reward, I think not. We are taught that to advance we need to be seen as smarter, harder-working, having better ideas, and displaying more decisiveness than others. We need to be seen as movers and shakers. This can lead to a toxic workplace where people are always looking for ways to either look better or make perceived competitors for position look worse. This comes out in meetings and other settings in the form of taking the critical examination, real or perceived, of an idea we offer as personal affronts, rather than as rational discussion aimed at reaching a workable outcome. 

Even for those who are not jockeying for position, recognition, etc.,it can rankle having their ideas picked apart, even if it is done with respect and courtesy. After all, ideas, especially ones we have put some time and effort into, are like babies: we want others to like them as much as we do. We do not easily see the flaws.

How do we forego ownership in favor of clear-headed and objective analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of our ideas? 

Let me first ask this question: What is the purpose of the process of reaching a group decision in a business setting? I maintain that the purpose is to advance the goals of the business, whether they be increasing sales, developing a new line of products, a strategic planning effort, expansion, reorganization, or a host of other business needs and goals. The important thing is that it is to help the business, not the ambitions of any one individual. When the understanding of the group is that their charge is to make decisions that are for the company as a whole, and that understanding is accepted by all participants, it is easier for each of them to relinquish ownership of their thoughts and ideas as a part of that process. 

Earlier I mentioned the competition for, among other things, recognition and credit. We all, or at least most of us, would like to be seen as smart and capable and one of the ways this can manifest is by the recognition of those characteristics and receiving credit for good ideas. This makes it all the harder to give up ownership of those ideas. 

Consider this, however: it is not at all uncommon for a decision or course of action chosen as a result of a group process not to yield the desired result. In other words, and negatively expressed, it failed. If the idea was offered up and ownership now resided with the group as a whole instead of an individual, it has more than likely been modified, maybe even nearly beyond recognition, during the process of discussion and analysis by the group and truly does not belong to any one individual. If it does not yield the result intended, no one individual can be made responsible. The group, by now experts in the subject of the decision, can look closely at why the result did not match expectations and, armed with new information, revisit the issue. There is the further advantage that there have been plenty (we hope) of other ideas that alternatives already exist. 

Does this mean that we cannot be ambitious and be seen as smart movers and shakers? No, but it does put an emphasis on being a part of a team that can solve problems and make decisions that help the company succeed, and that can lead to recognition and reward. 

The principle of giving up ownership of ideas is a key part of Solution-Building.