Start Anywhere

When groups begin searching for paths around their latest obstacles, or when they begin discussing new opportunities, a common pattern that impedes initial progress is a meta-debate about where to begin. Advocates of the various options do mean well; they truly believe that the option they favor is the "best" place to begin. Some do turn out to be correct; many do not. How any of them could know what they claim to know at the very earliest stages of their explorations is often mysterious. But that's a topic for another time.

In my experience, it turns out that starting (almost) anywhere is more valuable than delaying the start to debate what might be the perfectly optimal starting approach. Groups usually start in the wrong direction, even if they first debate the choices extensively. These debates aren't entirely wasteful, because they do clarify somewhat the options available. Still, in many instances, groups can learn much — if not more — by choosing an option with far less deliberation. So I've become an advocate of starting anywhere and seeing what happens, except, of course, when safety or health is an issue, or when trial solutions are irrevocable. With those two exceptions, in many cases, starting anywhere is just about as good as starting anywhere else.

But the start-anywhere approach isn't a license to blunder. There are some conditions attached.

Change course when the need is clear

The start-anywhere approach is based on a love of learning. To learn, and to love learning, we must have permission to make mistakes, because learning is the act of acquiring new knowledge or a new skill. After we've learned something, we're able to think or act differently. And to do that entails acknowledging that the old way of thinking or acting might not fit in certain situations.

We need to feel When we adopt an experimental
attitude, we can start anywhere,
and change course if
the need becomes clearthat it's safe to change after we've learned something. Unless we feel safe to change, acknowledging errors is difficult. That difficulty can cause us to stay on a course long after the time when the need for a course change is clear. Experience with that particular trap probably accounts for much of our tendency to debate which course to take even when we lack enough knowledge to decide among the possible choices.

Acknowledge cost when cost is a factor

When we adopt an experimental attitude, we can start anywhere, and change course if the need becomes clear. But these experiments aren't free. If the cost of changing is high enough, our choices of experiments might be influenced more by cost than by their relevance to learning.

Balancing the need to learn against the cost of learning is acceptable if we know we're doing it. Too often, though, we debate this balance in terms of the goodness of the options, rather than their cost. Because we always do better at whatever we're doing when we we're doing it with intention, acknowledge the cost of experiments when cost is a factor.

Consider how trying a solution might alter the problem

When our trial solutions irrevocably change the problem in important ways, we must exercise caution in choosing our trials. In such situations, debate about where to start is worthwhile — it might even be essential.

As an example, consider choosing a tint for a tinted concrete driveway. We wouldn't tint the concrete and then pour the entire driveway to see whether we like the tint. We'd find a less permanent way to check the tint.

Still, debates about trial solutions can sometimes fail to address the central issue, which is that we must keep in mind how a trial solution might alter the problem. Some solutions might have more impact than others; some might make irrevocable changes that aren't relevant to our purpose. Focus the where-to-start debate on the issue of irrevocability, and use that issue to generate alternative options and sort through them.

Value the freedom to discard prototypes

Often, prototypes become the basis for the final product — probably too often. When we incorporate into the final product designs that we intended only for experimentation or demonstration or proof-of-concept purposes, we're at risk of letting our first efforts become our last. And that can be dangerous when the designs of elements of our first efforts were never intended to support the usage patterns or environment that the final product must support.

Our fear that our prototype designs will be used in this way can fuel the debates about where to start. When we can be certain that we have the freedom to discard prototypes, where we start becomes far less consequential. Insist on the freedom to discard prototypes.

An environment that supports the above four conditions enables problem solvers to focus on the problem, instead of the consequences of failed solution attempts. Some who are fortunate enough to work in such an environment have not always had such good fortune. They might bring with them perspectives from less supportive environments. Habits of thought can be difficult to change; be gentle with those who are still making the transition.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Problem Solving and Creativity:

Critical Thinking and Midnight Pizza

When we notice patterns or coincidences, we draw conclusions about things we can't or didn't directly observe. Sometimes the conclusions are right, and sometimes not. When they're not, organizations, careers, and people can suffer. To be right more often, we must master critical thinking.

Comfortable Ignorance

When we suddenly realize that what we've believed is wrong, or that what we've been doing won't work, our fear and discomfort can cause us to persevere in our illusions. If we can get better at accepting reality and dealing with it, we can make faster progress toward real achievement.

Linear Thinking Bias

When assessing the validity of problem solutions, we regard them as more valid if their discovery stories are logical, than we would if they're other than logical. This can lead to erroneous assessments, because the discovery story is not the solution.

Power Distance and Risk

Managing or responding to project risks is much easier when team culture encourages people to report problems and to question any plans they have reason to doubt. Here are five examples that show how such encouragement helps to manage risk.

During-Action Reviews

When you depend on internal services to get your job done, and they aren't being delivered in a customer-oriented fashion, solving the problem during the incident isn't likely to work. Here are seven tips for addressing the issue.

See also Problem Solving and Creativity and Critical Thinking at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus

Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.

And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies

In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   

Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?

Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 24, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.