CHAPTER 13

WHAT REALLY IS OUR PROBLEM?

(Defining the Issues That Need to Be Resolved Together)

It Was a $90 million dispute; big stakes, with a lot of publicity. The parties had been negotiating the dispute off and on for almost eighteen months without success. Jim was asked to try mediation with the parties because it had finally reached the litigation stage. In his first meeting with the parties Jim asked each side to educate him about the dispute. He needed to know the details of the dispute. What problem were they trying to resolve?

The first spokesperson started by giving a little history. She spoke for about forty-five minutes, explaining in great detail the substance of the problem. At the end of the lengthy explanation the second spokesperson turned to her and said, “What in the hell are you talking about? That’s not the problem at all!”

They had never had a good discussion of how each organization saw the problem. Both sides were using language that was similar enough to lull the other side into believing they were trying to solve the same problem. But they weren’t. Each time they made proposals, they sounded close enough to be working on the same problem, but in fact they were like passengers on two trains on parallel tracks heading in similar directions. They weren’t ever going to meet until they both started working on the same problem.

If the head of manufacturing believes the goal is to reduce absenteeism, and the head of human resources believes they are trying to raise low morale, these may overlap enough that it sounds as if they are working on the same issue. When it comes time to reach closure, however, each side may be a little mystified and frustrated by the other’s lack of enthusiasm for their proposed solutions.

It’s a little like drawing a curved line in the sand and asking people if it is convex or concave. It depends entirely on where you’re standing. What is your perspective? People standing on either side of the line could argue for a long time and never reach an agreement. Compromise certainly won’t help. Nobody would be willing to compromise by splitting the difference and agreeing that the line was straight. If people on the left defined the problem as “How can I get these other people to see that the line is concave?” and the people on the right defined the problem as “How can I get these other people to see that the line is convex?” they will merely have increased their own rigid thinking about the problem.

If they can agree on a common problem statement like “What is the nature of this line?” then they can work together to find a solution. The people on one side might then be willing to go to the other side to see a different perspective. After doing that, they might invite the people on the other side to come across to see it from their perspective.

Without a common definition of the problem they won’t be able to successfully work as a team to solve the right problem. A thorough discussion and explicit agreement about the issues to be resolved is a prerequisite to a good solution for the same problem.

DON’T INCLUDE SOLUTIONS

Rick and Harry are business partners we’ve worked with. Rick is on the road a lot, incurring travel expenses on the company credit card. He admittedly is not meticulous about saving receipts, but doesn’t think it’s that big a deal if he loses an occasional receipt because the company gets a monthly bill from the credit card company. Harry has responsibility for financial issues and is enormously frustrated by Rick’s failure to turn in all his receipts.

Rick defines the problem as “How can I get Harry off my back about lost receipts?” Harry defines the problem as “How can I get Rick to be more responsible and turn in all his receipts?” Neither of these, however, is effective as a problem statement. Each is more about a favorite solution rather than the underlying problem. Harry’s favorite solution is to get Rick to change his behavior. Rick’s favorite solution is to get Harry to change his behavior. Including a solution in the problem statement will just entrench everyone’s position about the issue rather than open up a helpful dialogue. One solution may in fact be for Rick to do a better job of turning in receipts. But imagine how open Rick will be to trying to solve the problem of “How do I get Rick to be more responsible and turn in all his receipts?” It will just seem like more nagging on Harry’s part. Another potential solution may be for Harry to lighten up about the receipts and accept the credit card bill as enough documentation. But Harry is less likely to move in that direction if the subject of their meeting is “How do I get Harry off my back?”

If these two partners define the problem as “How can we design a system to account for travel expenses and credit card receipts?” they are both more likely to embrace the problem-solving process. Neither will feel the need to defend himself going into the process.

If you include solutions in the problem statement, you may also inadvertently eliminate other potentially good solutions. For example, in a joint venture between a U.S. manufacturer and a Chinese distributor of the product, assume the problem was stated as:

1. Which partner will determine the sales profit margin on imported goods?

   Or

2. How will the export sales manager set profit margins?

Both of these statements of the problem include preconceived solutions and exclude other possible solutions. Number one assumes that the profit margin has to be set by either one partner or the other. The second problem statement assumes the margin will be set by the export sales manager. Both tend to reduce the number of creative options the two sides might invent if they weren’t starting with those preconceptions. They might never consider the possibility of a joint U.S.-Chinese price/profit committee, or the possible option of setting a floor price and letting distributors set their own profit margins above the sales price.

DON’T SHAME OR BLAME

In the Rick and Harry example, both will probably be more open to a solution if they are not blamed or shamed about the current situation. Attacking an issue rather than demonizing a person will reduce your counterpart’s defensiveness as well as send a message that you want to work with the other side to find a solution. A nonjudgmental problem statement will also invite people to solve the problem from the constructive Green Zone.

A common question we get when we urge this strategy is “What if the person is the problem?” We see this in teams quite often where a single member of the team is rude or disruptive or has ineffective communication skills. There we urge parties to define the behaviors as the problem rather than the person. You are much more likely to solve the issue of “How can I get my phone calls to Bob returned in a timely manner?” or “How can I improve communications with Bob?” rather than “What can we do about Bob? He’s such an insensitive jerk.”

KEEP IT SIMPLE

We also urge parties to keep their problem statement simple. If it takes more than a sentence or two to describe, you’re probably getting into too much detail too early in the process. A simple statement allows parties to easily refer back to their original focus if they are getting off track.

In planning, you may have to speculate about how your counterparts might define the problem. It is important to give this some careful thought. Do a little role reversal and put yourself in their place. Ask yourself how they might describe the situation, including its impact on the relationship. Then see if you can draft a problem statement that would be acceptable to all of you.

Once you actually start meeting with the other side, it is important that you verify that your understanding of the problem from their perspective was correct. You’ll need all your of active listening and feedback skills. It is also an opportunity to check out any assumptions that you may have been making.

Don’t just announce what the problem is that must be resolved. Use this as an opportunity to demonstrate that you’ve been giving the matter some thought from their perspective. You might introduce a proposed problem statement with something like “I’ve been trying to think about this problem from both our perspectives and define it in a way that we could both agree so that we are both trying to find solutions to the same problem. Please let me know if I’ve misunderstood anything from your point of view or left anything out.” Then introduce your proposed problem statement and discuss it to see if it works for both of you.

By introducing it that way you are signaling that you’ve made an effort to understand the other’s point of view and that you want to work together with them to find a solution. It is an invitation to search for solutions from the constructive set of Green Zone attitudes and behaviors.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

If you can’t agree on the problem, you’ll never agree on the solution. Without a common definition of the problem you won’t be able to operate as a collaborative team trying to solve the right problem. When it comes time to reach closure, each side will be frustrated by the other’s lack of enthusiasm for their proposed solutions. The definition of the problem must also be acceptable to both sides to get full buy-in for any solutions. Do not include potential solutions in the problem statement. Including them will usually trigger defensiveness and rigid thinking on the other side, and you may also inadvertently eliminate other good potential solutions. To keep everyone in the Green Zone, focus on the issue without shaming or blaming each other. Finally, remember the adage “keep it simple.” A short, concise statement allows parties to refocus easily if they are getting off track.