How do you learn to build the bridges to better problem solving?

You resist the temptation to jump into the fray. You clear your mind of reactionary assumptions and knee jerk responses. Before you say one word, ask yourself "Why?"

Why is this issue worth the time we are spending on it? If I'm right and the answer is so obvious why is there disagreement?

Only when we are challenged to think beyond our established viewpoint can we begin to see the path that we should be on. In this case neither is prepared with a response and both are forced to actually listen to the answers and then discuss the situation.

Questions are a great way to narrow the gap between the two positions. Questions will force these seemingly polar group members closer together in a search for an answer. Posing a good question means crafting it in such a way that the answer could not previously have been known and can not be accessed without a different way of thinking.

How do we respond to each call in 12 hours considering that we have lost 20% of our staff?"

"If we each lend two people to the project what do we hope to accomplish?

"What is the fastest and most effective way to resolve the cause of the complaints so customers would not need to call?"

To these questions

—Bernard Baruch

We've all had the experience of sitting in a staff meeting discussing some important issue to be solved or challenge to be overcome. Everyone is throwing out there thoughts and suggestions with one idea being trumped or dismissed by the next.

Then there is that moment of silence. One person interjects the most reasoned position.

Somehow while others were entrenched in the verbal exchange this team member found a simple and concise way of bringing all the information together. The comment leads to responses of, "exactly," "that's what I was trying to say," "you hit the nail right on the head."

Thirty-minutes of non-progressive discussion has just been moved 60 yards downfield.

If you weren't the genius proffering the great suggestion that got everyone's notice, you're probably sitting there thinking to yourself, "Why didn't I think of that?" If it wasn't your question that changed the course of the discussion you may ask yourself, "why didn't I say that?" Watching everyone rally around this new central idea you think, "That's exactly what I've been trying to say!"

How does this happen? How do intelligent, experienced, articulate people get so side tracked when discussing issues and how to address a situation? How do we spend hours in meetings only to leave with no clear resolutions that require more meetings for clarification?

The knowledge and ability to solve whatever problem you're facing is sitting around the table. The challenge is learning to access it in a way that leads to collaborative problem solving.

In my many years of training, coaching and consulting, I have learned that people come to the table with two mental maps to problem solving. The first is most oriented to seeing the problem as it IS today. They start with today and look backward for the answers. They keep us honest by reminding us of where we've been and the rules that should be followed. Their focus is WHY we are we in the situation we're in?

I call this group PROsiders. Problem oriented problem solvers lean toward getting results by avoiding past mistakes. This group is great at accurately reflecting the "pain" of the situation—what's wrong, when it went wrong, how long it's been wrong. In discussions they focus on why the goals can not be met and sound a little like this in meetings,

"We are receiving too many customer complaints about service"

"People want us to solve their problem rather than find the information on the website or the resource material we provided."

"We could get more accomplished but we've lost 20% of our staff."

"The goals are simply unreasonable working 24 hours a day we couldn't get this done."

On the other side of the table are the forward-looking idea makers. This group of SOsiders (solution oriented problem solvers) is sure they know exactly where the organization should be heading and exactly the tools, technique, or strategy that will get you there. They're belief is that sometimes you have to jump in and do something. They get results by being decisive, picking a path and making it happen. If you don't have what's needed, they have a plan for creating something new. Less constrained by the rules or limitations of the past, they are always ready to move forward. They focus on what can be done.

You know this group in meetings because they continually tell you how to solve the problem.

"All we need is to have each manager lend two people to the project."

"We need to establish a goal of answering every service call within 12 hours."

"Let's get someone in here to train these people and get them up to speed."

"We could improve the user interface and make accessing the information more straight forward."

This is how most of our meetings go. The problem-side analyzers constantly tell us why we can't move ahead and the solution-side problem solvers are sure that they have discovered the Holy Grail. Round and round we go while the clock keeps ticking. My experience has taught me; however that both of these positions are absolutely necessary, equally relevant and also equally flawed. Both perspectives are based on narrowly tailored belief systems and personal work and life experiences.

PROsiders are mired in today and can't see past the current situation. This groups needs to accept that no situation is either as harsh or as fair as we'd like to believe. What has happened or is happening is important but only to the degree that provides information about how to move ahead.

In contrast, SOsiders are so focused on the future that the realities of the day are overlooked. This group has to learn that everything might be possible but may also be too costly or there are far too many constraints to make it probable. Each view is predicated on one's own limited set of work and life experiences.

When people get entrenched in their position and decide on a course of action without first looking at the problem from all angles, the goal and intent of the discussion gets lost in the translation. PROsiders and SOsiders may be speaking same language but with different dialects. One keeps explaining shy things are they way they are and the other keeps throwing out suggestions that can't be paid for or implemented.

And if you think the source of the problem is the people at the table—you're right. Because PRO and SOsiders are so rooted in and heavily invested in their own view of the issue, the only way to slow them down and have any chance of getting everyone focused is to ask questions for which neither has a prepared or definitive answer. Putting these two views together completes one whole picture and provides invaluable insight needed for collaborative problem solving. Working collaboratively to solve problems means building a bridge from where we are to where we need to be.

Every meeting—every business problem—could use some expert bridge builders. These people do more than interpret the language of PRO and SOsiders; they bridge the gap between them, get people focused on the goal. The more troubled the waters, the more bridge building that's needed.

How do you learn to build the bridges to better problem solving?

You resist the temptation to jump into the fray. You clear your mind of reactionary assumptions and knee jerk responses. Before you say one word, ask yourself "Why?"

Why is this issue worth the time we are spending on it? If I'm right and the answer is so obvious why is there disagreement?

Only when we are challenged to think beyond our established viewpoint can we begin to see the path that we should be on. In this case neither is prepared with a response and both are forced to actually listen to the answers and then discuss the situation.

Questions are a great way to narrow the gap between the two positions. Questions will force these seemingly polar group members closer together in a search for an answer. Posing a good question means crafting it in such a way that the answer could not previously have been known and can not be accessed without a different way of thinking.

How do we respond to each call in 12 hours considering that we have lost 20% of our staff?"

"If we each lend two people to the project what do we hope to accomplish?

"What is the fastest and most effective way to resolve the cause of the complaints so customers would not need to call?"

To these questions t

In my many years of training, coaching and consulting, I have learned that people come to the table with two mental maps to problem solving. The first is most oriented to seeing the problem as it IS today. They start with today and look backward for the answers. They keep us honest by reminding us of where we've been and the rules that should be followed. Their focus is WHY we are we in the situation we're in?

I call this group PROsiders. Problem oriented problem solvers lean toward getting results by avoiding past mistakes. This group is great at accurately reflecting the "pain" of the situation—what's wrong, when it went wrong, how long it's been wrong. In discussions they focus on why the goals can not be met and sound a little like this in meetings,

"We are receiving too many customer complaints about service"

"People want us to solve their problem rather than find the information on the website or the resource material we provided."

"We could get more accomplished but we've lost 20% of our staff."

"The goals are simply unreasonable working 24 hours a day we couldn't get this done."

On the other side of the table are the forward-looking idea makers. This group of SOsiders (solution oriented problem solvers) is sure they know exactly where the organization should be heading and exactly the tools, technique, or strategy that will get you there. They're belief is that sometimes you have to jump in and do something. They get results by being decisive, picking a path and making it happen. If you don't have what's needed, they have a plan for creating something new. Less constrained by the rules or limitations of the past, they are always ready to move forward. They focus on what can be done.

You know this group in meetings because they continually tell you how to solve the problem.

"All we need is to have each manager lend two people to the project."

"We need to establish a goal of answering every service call within 12 hours."

"Let's get someone in here to train these people and get them up to speed."

"We could improve the user interface and make accessing the information more straight forward."

This is how most of our meetings go. The problem-side analyzers constantly tell us why we can't move ahead and the solution-side problem solvers are sure that they have discovered the Holy Grail. Round and round we go while the clock keeps ticking. My experience has taught me; however that both of these positions are absolutely necessary, equally relevant and also equally flawed. Both perspectives are based on narrowly tailored belief systems and personal work and life experiences.

PROsiders are mired in today and can't see past the current situation. This groups needs to accept that no situation is either as harsh or as fair as we'd like to believe. What has happened or is happening is important but only to the degree that provides information about how to move ahead.

In contrast, SOsiders are so focused on the future that the realities of the day are overlooked. This group has to learn that everything might be possible but may also be too costly or there are far too many constraints to make it probable. Each view is predicated on one's own limited set of work and life experiences.

When people get entrenched in their position and decide on a course of action without first looking at the problem from all angles, the goal and intent of the discussion gets lost in the translation. PROsiders and SOsiders may be speaking same language but with different dialects. One keeps explaining shy things are they way they are and the other keeps throwing out suggestions that can't be paid for or implemented.

And if you think the source of the problem is the people at the table—you're right. Because PRO and SOsiders are so rooted in and heavily invested in their own view of the issue, the only way to slow them down and have any chance of getting everyone focused is to ask questions for which neither has a prepared or definitive answer. Putting these two views together completes one whole picture and provides invaluable insight needed for collaborative problem solving. Working collaboratively to solve problems means building a bridge from where we are to where we need to be.

Every meeting—every business problem—could use some expert bridge builders. These people do more than interpret the language of PRO and SOsiders; they bridge the gap between them, get people focused on the goal. The more troubled the waters, the more bridge building that's needed.

How do you learn to build the bridges to better problem solving?

You resist the temptation to jump into the fray. You clear your mind of reactionary assumptions and knee jerk responses. Before you say one word, ask yourself "Why?"

Why is this issue worth the time we are spending on it? If I'm right and the answer is so obvious why is there disagreement?

Only when we are challenged to think beyond our established viewpoint can we begin to see the path that we should be on. In this case neither is prepared with a response and both are forced to actually listen to the answers and then discuss the situation.

Questions are a great way to narrow the gap between the two positions. Questions will force these seemingly polar group members closer together in a search for an answer. Posing a good question means crafting it in such a way that the answer could not previously have been known and can not be accessed without a different way of thinking.

How do we respond to each call in 12 hours considering that we have lost 20% of our staff?"

"If we each lend two people to the project what do we hope to accomplish?

"What is the fastest and most effective way to resolve the cause of the complaints so customers would not need to call?"

To these questions

You know this group in meetings because they continually tell you how to solve the problem.

"All we need is to have each manager lend two people to the project."

"We need to establish a goal of answering every service call within 12 hours."

"Let's get someone in here to train these people and get them up to speed."

"We could improve the user interface and make accessing the information more straight forward."

This is how most of our meetings go. The problem-side analyzers constantly tell us why we can't move ahead and the solution-side problem solvers are sure that they have discovered the Holy Grail. Round and round we go while the clock keeps ticking. My experience has taught me; however that both of these positions are absolutely necessary, equally relevant and also equally flawed. Both perspectives are based on narrowly tailored belief systems and personal work and life experiences.

PROsiders are mired in today and can't see past the current situation. This groups needs to accept that no situation is either as harsh or as fair as we'd like to believe. What has happened or is happening is important but only to the degree that provides information about how to move ahead.

In contrast, SOsiders are so focused on the future that the realities of the day are overlooked. This group has to learn that everything might be possible but may also be too costly or there are far too many constraints to make it probable. Each view is predicated on one's own limited set of work and life experiences.

When people get entrenched in their position and decide on a course of action without first looking at the problem from all angles, the goal and intent of the discussion gets lost in the translation. PROsiders and SOsiders may be speaking same language but with different dialects. One keeps explaining shy things are they way they are and the other keeps throwing out suggestions that can't be paid for or implemented.

And if you think the source of the problem is the people at the table—you're right. Because PRO and SOsiders are so rooted in and heavily invested in their own view of the issue, the only way to slow them down and have any chance of getting everyone focused is to ask questions for which neither has a prepared or definitive answer. Putting these two views together completes one whole picture and provides invaluable insight needed for collaborative problem solving. Working collaboratively to solve problems means building a bridge from where we are to where we need to be.

Every meeting—every business problem—could use some expert bridge builders. These people do more than interpret the language of PRO and SOsiders; they bridge the gap between them, get people focused on the goal. The more troubled the waters, the more bridge building that's needed.

How do you learn to build the bridges to better problem solving?

You resist the temptation to jump into the fray. You clear your mind of reactionary assumptions and knee jerk responses. Before you say one word, ask yourself "Why?"

Why is this issue worth the time we are spending on it? If I'm right and the answer is so obvious why is there disagreement?

Only when we are challenged to think beyond our established viewpoint can we begin to see the path that we should be on. In this case neither is prepared with a response and both are forced to actually listen to the answers and then discuss the situation.

Questions are a great way to narrow the gap between the two positions. Questions will force these seemingly polar group members closer together in a search for an answer. Posing a good question means crafting it in such a way that the answer could not previously have been known and can not be accessed without a different way of thinking.

How do we respond to each call in 12 hours considering that we have lost 20% of our staff?"

"If we each lend two people to the project what do we hope to accomplish?

"What is the fastest and most effective way to resolve the cause of the complaints so customers would not need to call?"

To these questions

In contrast, SOsiders are so focused on the future that the realities of the day are overlooked. This group has to learn that everything might be possible but may also be too costly or there are far too many constraints to make it probable. Each view is predicated on one's own limited set of work and life experiences.

When people get entrenched in their position and decide on a course of action without first looking at the problem from all angles, the goal and intent of the discussion gets lost in the translation. PROsiders and SOsiders may be speaking same language but with different dialects. One keeps explaining shy things are they way they are and the other keeps throwing out suggestions that can't be paid for or implemented.

And if you think the source of the problem is the people at the table—you're right. Because PRO and SOsiders are so rooted in and heavily invested in their own view of the issue, the only way to slow them down and have any chance of getting everyone focused is to ask questions for which neither has a prepared or definitive answer. Putting these two views together completes one whole picture and provides invaluable insight needed for collaborative problem solving. Working collaboratively to solve problems means building a bridge from where we are to where we need to be.

Every meeting—every business problem—could use some expert bridge builders. These people do more than interpret the language of PRO and SOsiders; they bridge the gap between them, get people focused on the goal. The more troubled the waters, the more bridge building that's needed.

How do you learn to build the bridges to better problem solving?

You resist the temptation to jump into the fray. You clear your mind of reactionary assumptions and knee jerk responses. Before you say one word, ask yourself "Why?"

Why is this issue worth the time we are spending on it? If I'm right and the answer is so obvious why is there disagreement?

Only when we are challenged to think beyond our established viewpoint can we begin to see the path that we should be on. In this case neither is prepared with a response and both are forced to actually listen to the answers and then discuss the situation.

Questions are a great way to narrow the gap between the two positions. Questions will force these seemingly polar group members closer together in a search for an answer. Posing a good question means crafting it in such a way that the answer could not previously have been known and can not be accessed without a different way of thinking.

How do we respond to each call in 12 hours considering that we have lost 20% of our staff?"

"If we each lend two people to the project what do we hope to accomplish?

"What is the fastest and most effective way to resolve the cause of the complaints so customers would not need to call?"

To these questions

How do you learn to build the bridges to better problem solving?

You resist the temptation to jump into the fray. You clear your mind of reactionary assumptions and knee jerk responses. Before you say one word, ask yourself "Why?"

Why is this issue worth the time we are spending on it? If I'm right and the answer is so obvious why is there disagreement?

Only when we are challenged to think beyond our established viewpoint can we begin to see the path that we should be on. In this case neither is prepared with a response and both are forced to actually listen to the answers and then discuss the situation.

Questions are a great way to narrow the gap between the two positions. Questions will force these seemingly polar group members closer together in a search for an answer. Posing a good question means crafting it in such a way that the answer could not previously have been known and can not be accessed without a different way of thinking.

How do we respond to each call in 12 hours considering that we have lost 20% of our staff?"

"If we each lend two people to the project what do we hope to accomplish?

"What is the fastest and most effective way to resolve the cause of the complaints so customers would not need to call?"

To these questions there is generally a brief silence in the room quickly followed by,

"I'm not sure."

"Why do you ask?"

"I don't know."

"I hadn't really thought about it that way."

That slight pause and momentary suspension of argument is all that is needed to begin the process of collaboration and group problem solving.

Different from the other approaches to problem solving, the results-focused problem solvers or Bridgers have mental maps that allow them to explore problems from a variety of angles, value differing perspectives and the greatest number of options. Rather than saying that something can't be done they propose seeking a way to meeting and exceeding expectations.

Those with great problem solving ability typically set themselves apart by focusing more on the goals and outcomes than they do on the problem or the solution. They come to their conclusions by examining both the problem and the desired solutions to find the gap between them. In that gap lies the attainable GOAL. These bridge builders grow their circle of influence as they get others to step back and see the big picture. Rather than focus on disparate parts the focus becomes what success will look like.

Rather than battling for position in meetings good problem solvers ask more than they tell. They ask the power questions that draw others in. Their questions go right to the heart of the issue by expanding the conversation instead of limiting it. Without choosing sides or suggesting that either group is right or wrong the Bridger can refocus the discussion with three questions…

• "What are we trying to accomplish?"
• "What will success look like?"
• "Are you up for the challenge?"

The next time your team gets stuck or you find your meeting getting off track. Somebody has to build a bridge—why don't you give it a try. Rather than responding to the comments already under discussion, ask the questions above. Watch the reaction. See if it catches their attention. They may just slow everyone down long enough to get them thinking about what's important. It may be all it takes to get the group to start hearing each other and moving in a forward direction.