Posts tagged: Monkey Cage Sessions

The power of a little naiveté

questioningMost of us are experts in something. Our expertise and experience are usually significant advantages that allow us to deal effectively with complex problems and situations. But they can occasionally be Achilles’ heels when they breed the type of overconfidence that causes us to overlook simple solutions in favor of more complex and costly solutions. Injecting a little naiveté into some problem solving sessions can spur new thinking that results in more effective and efficient solutions.

In my experience, experts tend to skip right by the simple solutions to most problems. Groups of experts working to solve a problem are even more likely to head directly to the more complex solutions.

Consider this example from the excellent book I’m currently reading, CustomerCulture by Michael D. Basch (thanks to Anna Barcelos for the tip):

Hershey’s Chocolate Company had a problem on its Rollo production line. It had worked with teams of employees to improve quality and had raised the consciousness of their employees around service in all aspects of the operation. This example involves a problem where the candy went through an automatic wrapping machine, and the wrapped candy was dropped onto a conveyor that dumped it into boxes to be sold in retail stores. When the box reached the specified weight, it would be shifted to a new empty box, and the process would continue.

The problem was that, all too often, empty wrappers would come out of the wrapping machine and end up in the retail boxes. These boxes had cellophane windows where the consumer could see the empty wrappers, and, although the box was sold by weight, the customers’ perception was of poor quality and the feeling of being taken advantage of.

The company put a team of engineers on the problem, and a new wrapping machine was not cost justified. Therefore, the problem became “How to get the empty wrappers off the conveyor.” The engineers then designed an elaborate vibratory conveyor system. A vibratory conveyor vibrates, and heavy things tend to move with the force of gravity. In this way, they could vibrate the filled wrappers off the vibratory conveyor to the box filling conveyor. The cost would be about $10,000 to move equipment around and to install the new system. Of greater consequence was the time. This line was working 24 hours a day and 7 days a week and was still falling behind. A retrofit would stall production for a day and one-half.

Fortunately, part of the team inventing the new system was the production workers who worked the line every day. The engineers presented their solution for feedback. The next day, two production workers were discussing the problem just before lunch when one said, “I’ve got it.” The other asked, “What have you got?” “I’ll show you after lunch,” came a hasty reply as the man left the building. After lunch, he returned with a $15 fan he had purchased at Wal-Mart. He plugged in the fan. It blew the empty wrappers off the conveyor, and the problem was solved—no great cost, no stalled production.

In the end, the simple solution was both highly effective and highly efficient. I don’t know why expertise largely blinds us to these types of solutions, but maybe it’s because our training and our past experiences have been so focused on complex solutions that we just automatically go there. And when we’re discussing the problems with groups of experts, as was the case in the Hershey’s example, maybe we also just assume the others in the group have already considered more simple solutions.

Hence, the power of a little naiveté.

Too often, we associate naiveté with ineptitude, but the root of the word, naive, is really more about lack of understanding or sophistication. And that lack of sophistication can be just what the doctor ordered in some problem solving situations. I can think of many conversations I’ve had over the years with hard core technical folks where I asked a series of “dumb” questions that ultimately led to those highly trained experts developing simpler and ultimately more effective solutions.

Next time you have a complicated problem you’re trying to solve, rather than just gathering the best of the best (and only the best of the best) to discuss solutions, consider inviting a few “differently experienced” folks into the room. These don’t have to be inexperienced people in general, but rather people specifically inexperienced in the particular problem being solved. The main idea is to get some different thinking injected into the conversation. One of the main tenets of the Monkey Cage Sessions problem solving technique I’ve written about before is inviting people of different experience levels and backgrounds into a single session that allows views of the problem from multiple perspectives.

We need our assumptions to be questioned if we hope to find the absolute best solutions. Let’s tolerate a few “dumb” and “naive” questions and appreciate fresh perspectives on the problem. We might be surprised what solutions we come up through the power of a little naiveté.

What do you think? Have you ever encountered the power of naiveté in problem solving situations? Or do you think letting lesser experienced folks into complicated solution finding sessions is a waste of time?

Blinded By Certainty

blindfoldedIn reality, very little in our lives is absolutely certain. We can be certain the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. We can be certain death will follow life. And we can be pretty darn certain Steve Jobs will wear a black turtleneck and jeans at his next public appearance.

But we’re certain about a lot more things than we should be.

A recent University of Michigan study by Brendan Nylan and Jason Reifler shows that the more certain we are about particular ideas or situations the more we become blind to facts that discredit our certainty. In fact, in many cases opposing facts are not just ignored but actually strengthen our prior beliefs.  A recent Boston Globe article provides an excellent summary of the research.

From the article:

Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information.

Both the research and the article focus primarily on our political viewpoints, but while reading I couldn’t help but think of people I’ve come across in the business world who were unbelievably certain about their viewpoints based on information or experiences that seemed less than obvious to me. I immediately thought of dozens of people, and I bet you’re thinking of many such people now.

In fact, it was so easy for me to think of other people that fit the bill that I couldn’t help but think the man in the mirror was not immune to this universal human fallacy.

In my experience in the business world, we often assume with undue certainty that past experiences will reflect future possibilities. We say things like, “We tried that before and it didn’t work” or “I know what our customers want.” While our past experiences are extremely valuable and are very important for informing future decisions, we simply don’t have enough of them to blindly ignore changes in circumstances, timing and other variables that could significantly alter results for a new effort.

So how do we overcome our natural instincts in order to make better business decisions?

  1. Be aware of the problems with certainty
    You’ve read this far, so maybe you’re awareness is already active. I know that I am reassessing all the things I “know” to try to truly separate what is fact and what is assumption. I very much value all my experience, and I know I make better decisions because of what I’ve seen and heard along the way. But I want to make doubly sure that assumptions I make based on past experiences are tested and validated before I turn them into absolute fact.
  2. Actively seek alternate points-of-view
    In my experience, the combination of multiple experiences provides a much more solid foundation for decision making than basing decisions on singular past experiences. Techniques I’ve used, like The Monkey Cage Sessions, are based on the incorporating viewpoints from people in different functional areas and levels of the organization. While it’s acceptable to discount data or opinions that are in opposition to a decision I might make, I want to be sure I’m not simply rationalizing opposing information or viewpoints solely because they are different from my biases.
  3. Envision alternate scenarios
    I addressed this some in a previous post, “Obscure and pregnant with conflicting meanings”, where I discussed a technique I called “Scenario Imagination.” I’ve since read an excellent interview with Daniel Kahneman and Gary Klein where they detail a similar and better technique they call “pre-mortem” (which is also a better name than mine). Whenever we make decisions, we have a tendency to assume our decisions are going to produce the best possible results. These pre-mortem techniques have us imagine worst case scenarios to try to dissect potential problems before they occur.
  4. Be flexible and plan for contingencies
    Once we admit we’re not 100% certain, we can move forward with plans that are flexible and able to react to changing conditions. To be clear, I’m not saying we should just be wishy-washy and not make clear decisions. What I’m saying is that we should be open to new facts and be sure we have created an environment that allows us to change course when warranted.

If we’re aware of our certainty biases and take active steps to address them, I believe we can significantly improve our decision-making in our businesses.

What do you think? Upon self-examination, have you turned beliefs into facts in your mind? How would you suggest addressing these biases? Or, do you think is all a load of hooey?

Retail: Shaken Not Stirred by Kevin Ertell


Home | About