Dialogue Use Case: Problems not Solutions
Dialogue Use Case: Problems not Solutions
At work, I run into a lot of situations in which no one is clear on the problem. We as a group or an org culture or as a functionality culture (software engineers) are solution-oriented. I see around me solutions without problems. Sometimes extensively built solutions costing lots of money. But do they solve the problem (which problem again?)?
Then there are "presenting" problems. These are what you have in medicine and consulting. If you solve the presenting problem, the problem the client presents as the reason for getting help in the first place, you're usually doing more (long term) harm than good.
Dialogue, not necessarily as I talk about it, but as it generally exists out in the wild, is more often than not about solutions. Typically a group will brainstorm solutions to a problem (often little understood and/or even talked about.)
A group's dialogue skills could be pointed at problem definition.
Framed using the presenting problem a group might converse and generate the root problem given a presenting problem. Talking down one path and then another using a variety of perspectives to construct that future possible reality.
Generative dialogue could help to generate a sharp problem statement that could then be used to begin engineering a solution; sharp solution, precise-fitting for the root problem at hand.
Of course here's the rub, at least in my industry: the root cause is often psycho-social-organizational in nature. And no one in the room has a degree, familiarity, or experience with human system change and so hands are thrown up. "There's nothing we can do about the people part so let's just build this (incredibly expensive, to be supported for ages from now) thing that we're pretty sure will (at the very least) help this situation."
It's a very dumb thing that very smart people do all. The. Time. My micro context in which I observe this is not unique. It is dumb because it might be the single greatest source of waste in the global economy.
Here's the thing. I can't do it. Not solo. I don't know why. Can I not concentrate long enough? I can use freewriting to sort of get a bit closer. But I find biased, half pursued paths, lots of jumping to solutions wayyy ahead of time. I dream of a team to do this with because I can't do it solo.
Here's the other thing. I don't know of any teams that can do this either. Well, let me edit that. Maybe teams I know of can do this but none I know of prioritize doing this so it's never done and I'll never know if they can do it.
I assume that it isn't enough to simply say, "Hey let's not jump to solutions in this conversation. Let's arrive at a sharp problem statement informed by our collective, varying perspectives." I just don't think habits will be unlearned in that instant. The habit to skip to a solution is deeply ingrained in us. The discipline of thought and dialogue to follow a line of thought or discussion to it's end is not cultivated. So if it isn't enough to just set that intention, how might we start to adopt this practice?
I assume what's needed is something like a workshop in which you're exposed to the possibility of dialogue and of delaying solutioning, and then you practice it. And herein lies the conundrum. Few places of work I've been a part of, or know about, could feel justified in taking the time for a workshop of this sort. Too expensive to take that time away from "work" (solutioning, building expensive forever-to-be-supported-stuff). But in fact, it's much much more expensive to not.
And so, stuck we remain, wasting away...
Is there a way out?
Please tell me if you know? Come down to my Plato's cave and share the real story of the shadows with me. Take me up to the land outside to the light.
Podcast (Coming soon)
Workshops (Coming soon)
Reach out to me just for fun! - tommy@extragrad.com