We human beings are born problem solvers. We even band together in order to more efficiently so
lve problems (we are reminded of the definition of “culture” from Fons Trompenaars: “social context for shared problem solving”[1]). This can even be seen as hardwired into our very being, once we see the evolution of human beings and then specifically their brains. The oldest part of the human brain, often called the “reptilian brain”, alerts us to danger and forces us to respond to the threat from that danger.
Typically we then either flee or fight the cause of danger. Then, we see that a later development of the brain, the limbic system, introduces emotions. It allows us to connect with each other and to develop an individual emotional identity and we connect with others through the emotions we recognize in each other (recent research has brought to light that already toddlers have some awareness of the emotional identity of the people around them). It allows for language. A third addition of the human brain is the neocortex, which allows for reasoning and understanding.
This development of the human brain shows us that it started with responding to problems. Initially, the response is limited, for as far as problem solving goes, but which the development of the limbic system we see that the responses to problems are shared with others, while the neocortex allows for more thorough problem solving through analytical reasoning.
Problem solving can be seen as consisting the following elements: 1) awareness of a problem, 2) imagining preferable situations and 3) search for various options through which to reach such a preferable situation. Often it is shared problem solving, which brings in a few additional issues. Are all involved ready to admit that there is a problem to be solved (or would they rather look away)? Are they equally concerned about the urgency of the problem? How to arrive at a shared understanding of preferable situations? Preferable according to which criteria? And how to agree on options for moving forward? Probably not all options are equally attractive to all of those involved in the issue.
From problem solving to developing purpose
When we have identified a problem, designed a possible alternative and weighed our options, often purpose is the elephant in the room. We do not always make “purpose” explicit, but typically we do have some idea of what our purpose is. We may take it for granted and not often make it explicit.
Sometimes it takes an intense transition to make a purpose explicit and then find a new definition for it. Think of how IBM decided it is no longer about making business machines; something the company had always been very good at. But purpose has to be seen in two ways: there is the abstract sense, in which IBM is not longer making machines but “servicing information”. But there is also the more tangible sense, in which it still delivers certain products, such as SPSS.
Sensemaking and purpose
As developed by Weick[2], sense-making consists of the following elements: 1) identity, 2) retrospection, 3) enacting, 4) social dimension, 5) ongoing activity, 6) extracting cues from context and 7) favoring plausibility over accuracy. When we apply this to problem solving, we see more nuance in the threefold distinction mentioned above. The first two steps are about awareness: who are we really and what has brought us to the present situation? Then we see in the third and fourth step the phase that has been mentioned above as third while the fifth, sixth and seventh steps can be seen as comparable to step two from the above.
Sense making appears to apply primarily to purpose in the more tangible sense; the sense that sense making (from the perspective of Weick) is aiming at. Day to day problem solving occurs in terms of this type of sense making, which probably accounts for most of the risk management and innovation that takes place. When sense making in these terms no longer suffices, we see that the retrospection we see as the second step in the model of Weick needs to have a wider focus. There is then a need for a paradigm shift[3]. Today, many managers are starting to realize that their societies and industries are going through a paradigm shift, while they try to figure out how their companies fit in. They are starting to fear that they may become just as irrelevant as the skilled technician who admirably built a better typewriter.
Our legacy: making sense for the long haul
We human beings have not only an inclination to be problem solvers; we also have an inclination to make sense beyond our own mortality. This is even one of the main drivers behind art, social organisation and technical accomplishments. This should give all of us a natural interest in respecting sustainability.
Sustainability has for the longest time been expressed in negative terms, as a catchphrase for what we are no longer allowed to do. The moment has now come to reclaim the concept, in order to build an approach to remaining relevant; relevant in terms of being prepared for managing the risks that are hidden in de the catchphrase “sustainability” and in terms of being competent in what we could call “problem solving 2.0”.
Joop Remmé Ph.D. – lecturer, researcher, consultant
Contact information: Joop Remmé – remme@knowdialogue.nl
- Trompenaars, Alfons, Riding the Waves of Culture – Understanding Diversity in Global Business, London (1993)
- See: Weick, K.E., Sensemaking in Organisations. London (1985)
- As described by Thomas Kuhn, a paradigm shift in academic research takes place when the conceptual framework from a paradigm no longer suffices to explain the phenomena that are studied, after which a transformation takes place, in which competing theories are compared in terms of explanatory power; see: Kuhn, Thomas S. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago press, 2012.