Leaders to Leader

Lessons from the Great American Leaders & How They Apply Now

Posts Tagged ‘pitfalls

Six Critical Issues To Consider When Solving Problems

with 7 comments

problems

When difficulties are encountered, individuals tend to adopt a mental framework that allows them to simplify, classify and structure the information they are collecting about the problem. This allows individuals to deal with the complexity of an issue in a way that they can understand and manage. The major pitfall lies in people simplifying problems in ways that compel them to choose the wrong alternatives.

All people apply their own set of perspectives, experiences and insights in solving a problem, yet it is a major mistake to create a set of assumptions based upon personal biases. These assumptions subjectively and inadequately define the problem, and thus yield faulty solutions.

When individuals allow preconceived assumptions to blind them to the facts, they set out to solve the wrong problem. The best possible options are thus overlooked, or the individual loses sight of important objectives necessary to identify the best solution.

Individuals will consciously or unconsciously frame a problem. Framing is similar to looking out a window, in that the window defines what the individual is capable of seeing. Just as a window restricts an individual’s visual perspective, frames can keep the problem solver from seeing the entire landscape of solutions.

It is important to appreciate the degree to which frames have the power to influence a solution. Therefore, problems must be framed by facts rather than preconceived perceptions, assumptions or biases. The most useful problem solving frames will highlight what is important and categorize all other aspects as secondary. Additionally, solid frames allow individuals to remain open to unanticipated facts and data that may affect the outcome or solution. When facing an issue, individuals should create a frame specifically designed to solve the problem at hand, taking into consideration the following critical factors:

Boundaries

Boundaries define the breadth and scope of the problem. As people’s boundaries are most often defined by their daily activities and tasks, they will tend to draw narrow boundaries and develop a solution from within, which creates a myopic view of the problem and potential solutions. Since boundaries influence decisions, a broad approach is advisable when defining the scope of a problem.

Reference Points

Reference points are the focal point of decisions. They are used to compare one solution with another. A simple shift in reference points can change the entire outlook of a problem. For instance, from a customer’s perspective, a problem with a product or service can be catastrophic in terms of loss of income, time and productivity; this is their reference point. On the other hand, the company representative may view the same problem as minor when in fact it may take a service person several days to attend to. The reference points are different and so are the individual perspectives. This is often where conflict and hostility arise.

Measurement Standards

The measurement standards used to view a problem and develop solutions can be problematic. If a company sells a customer a small supply of product, they might consider the problem to be minor. However, if that small supply of product is a critical element in the customer’s production and its failure has closed down their entire operation, then from their perspective the problem is major. These are critical factors that must be considered by all parties if further problems are to be prevented.

Metaphors

Many people frame problems using common metaphors related to sports, warfare or family. Thinking in these terms can influence their decisions and solutions. Good decision makers will choose metaphors carefully to highlight important aspects of the problem. However, individuals should be aware that the use of metaphors might restrict their perspective and influence solutions.

Thinking Frames

Thinking frames are the borders people create to make sense of a wide array of issues. These frames are typically a result of an individual’s personality, occupation and education. Individuals should be aware of their own thinking frames, since these bring a natural bias or set of assumptions to all problems they encounter. When individuals are aware of their biases they are able to compensate during the problem solving process.

Cultural Frames

Cultural frames are similar to thinking frames except they are created by the national, geographic, industrial and corporate cultural boundaries that someone is part of. Each aspect of a cultural frame can influence and bias an individual’s view of a problem and its potential solution.

Excerpt: Problem Solving: Pinpoint Management Skill Development Training Series (Majorium Business Press, Stevens Point, WI 2011) $18.95 USD

Related:

Decision-Making Begins When an Action Needs to Be Taken

Correctly Framing Problems Pinpoints the Right Solution

Leaders Need to Focus on Questions Rather Than Offering Answers

Six Critical Issues To Consider When Solving Problems

For Additional Information the Author Recommends the Following Books:

Developing Critical Thinking Skills: The Pinpoint Leadership Skill Development Training Series

Conflict Resolution: Pinpoint Management Skill Development Series

Intelligent Decision Making: Pinpoint Management Skill Development Training Series

Planning to Maximize Performance: Pinpoint Leadership Skill Development Training Series

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. | Author | Publisher | Majorium Business Press
Author of Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Finalist – 2011 Foreword Reviews‘ Book of the Year)
Linkedin | Facebook | Twitter | Web| Blog | Catalog |800.654.4935 | 715.342.1018

Copyright © 2013 Timothy F. Bednarz, All Rights Reserved

Six Ways You Can Destroy Trust and Credibility

with 4 comments

stressedwoman

Leaders can be so caught up in the flurry of daily tasks and activities that they easily stumble into many pitfalls resulting in broken trusts with and betrayals of employees. Many of these actions are inadvertent, yet consequences can compound over time as unresolved conflicts build in employees’ minds.

The desire for building trust is an attitude that leaders either have or must develop if they wish to be successful. It is an essential building block of leadership. If leaders are unable to nurture a workplace grounded in an appreciation for the power of trust, instead of lead they will only be able to manage and direct using fear as the primary motivator.

This is important for leaders to appreciate because of the ease in which they can stumble into past management practices that undermine rather than cultivate employee trust. It may take time and effort to foster a personal attitude of trust, but when leaders do they will find their employees more effective, cooperative and productive. The alternative is an atmosphere of mistrust and betrayal where continual conflict, ineffectiveness and quality problems reign—and worsen over time.

Many leaders can easily stumble into a myriad of pitfalls and practices that undermine their ability to build and foster trust with their employees. The stress and demands of daily work make it easy for a leader to overlook many of their actions without understanding their attendant consequences. These can include:

Inconsistency

When leaders are reactive rather than proactive, they are often inconsistent in their actions. A decision made in reaction to a specific event or circumstance can be inconsistent with a similar decision made at another time. While both may seem logical at the time, this inconsistency creates a sense of mistrust in employees since they have little or no idea what to expect from the leader’s behavior.

Other inconsistencies occur when leaders show favoritism toward one employee over another. Employees don’t feel they are treated fairly and, consequently, will not trust the leader’s judgment.

Reluctance to Share Information

Many managers and leaders are reluctant to share facts and figures with their employees because they feel unable to trust them with the information. This attitude clearly and completely sets the tone in the organization. If a leader shares information freely, he or she will find that employees will in turn begin to share information with them. This builds an atmosphere of mutual trust and open communication.

The leader reluctant to trust employees with information shuts down this critical two-way communication and limits the organization’s ability to grow and adapt to change.

Lack of Personal Trust

Leaders must learn to trust their own personal judgment and competency. They must accept that they will make mistakes, be willing to learn from them, and move on.

As leaders face a daily barrage of information, feedback and data, they must learn to take time out of the day to do nothing but “let the dust settle.” This enables them to see things more clearly and in their entirety, to identify what needs to be done, and as time spent with employees is usually more important than any other item on the agenda, where time needs to be spent in order to build trust.

Lack of Open Dialogue

Building or rebuilding trust among employees is one of the biggest challenges leaders face. Downsizing and mergers have taken a toll on workplace trust, making employees more territorial wondering if they need to work to protect their jobs. Leaders must acknowledge these fears and anxieties and open a dialogue allowing employees to vent their fears and anxieties.

Refusal to Deal with the Past

Many leaders feel that the past events and circumstances that may have caused employees to feel betrayed are just that—in the past, and should be ignored. Yet it is a clear mistake to ignore these unresolved conflicts, as they will continue to fester and undermine any efforts to reestablish trust.

As leaders open a dialogue with employees, these issues should be allowed to surface and be dealt with. While it is true that the past cannot be changed, these personal feelings must be resolved before trust can be truly established.

Lack of Clarity of Beliefs and Values

In the heat of organizational change, the beliefs and values of the organization can get lost or muddled. Leaders must take the time to clarify fundamental beliefs and translate them into commonly held and agreed upon values. This allows leaders to align their organization with the company’s values and beliefs.

Excerpt: Building & Nurturing Trust in the Workplace: The Pinpoint Leadership Skill Development Training Series (Majorium Business Press, Stevens Point, WI 2011) $ 16.95 USD

Related:

You Are Judged by the Actions You Take

Emotional Bonds are a Reflection of a Leader’s Effectiveness

Six Ways to Enhance Your Personal Credibility

 Emotional Bonds are a Reflection of a Leader’s Effectiveness

 Can You Be Trusted? The Answer May Surprise You

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. | Author | Publisher | Majorium Business Press
Author of Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Finalist – 2011 Foreword Reviews‘ Book of the Year)
Linkedin | Facebook | Twitter | Web| Blog | Catalog |800.654.4935 | 715.342.1018

Copyright © 2013 Timothy F. Bednarz, All Rights Reserved

Empowerment Is Not Synonymous With Surrender

with one comment

smallgroup12

The maintenance of team strength requires ongoing leadership diligence and interaction. If leaders fail to pay attention to what is happening within the team culture and environment, it is easy to stumble into several pitfalls. Many major problems can be avoided by structured attentiveness.

It is easy for leaders to begin surrendering their personal authority as they actively work to empower team members. Many assume that individual teams are automatically able to meet the responsibilities assigned to them – thus making their jobs and workloads much lighter. When this belief takes hold, it is easy for leaders to assume that their responsibilities are being effectively handled. Because of it, they generally tend to miss the undercurrents and interactions that work to undermine team strength and productivity.

Because leaders understand that empowerment is not synonymous with surrender, they play an active, ongoing role in guiding and directing the actions of their individual teams. The roles and responsibilities of individual leaders are not subjugated to their teams. Rather, teams become a mechanism for leaders to be more effective within their organization and more productive in what they need to achieve within shorter periods of time.

There are a number of common pitfalls leaders can stumble into as they develop and build their teams.

Lack of Solid Team Structure

Leaders must ensure that their teams have a solid structure in place. This includes all team members having a clear and concise understanding of their roles and responsibilities. It also includes development of and adherence to the norms, rules and boundaries established during the team’s formation. Once a particular team has been established, a primary leadership responsibility is to make sure that the team adheres to its overall structure.

Not Being Observant

Within the team structure, leaders need to take a hands-off stance in regard to team matters and discussions in order to actively and impartially observe what is occurring. This enables them to be vigilant concerning internal team conflict, dominant personalities and other issues that can impact an individual team’s productivity, strength and performance. Leaders cannot assume that effective team management occurs automatically within the team growth and development process. Specific attention needs to be paid to all details when any negative occurrences take place.

Allowing or Minimizing Disruptive Team Behaviors

Leaders must understand that the team culture has a specific structure that guides and directs its progress and functioning. Specific roles must be assigned to maintain this structure for an adherence to the rules, boundaries and regulations that a particular team collectively develops.

One common pitfall many leaders stumble into involves allowing individual disruptive behaviors to continue to the point where they actively hamper the team’s progress. The acceptance of disruptive behaviors by leaders and other members can undermine overall team strength, as they have a tendency to intimidate less assertive participants into silence. Leaders must be vigilant for specific behaviors that inhibit the free-flow of ideas, thoughts and feedback within the team culture.

A Failure to Intervene

One of the team leader’s major responsibilities is to intervene whenever required to eliminate disruptive behaviors or any other barriers that negatively impact the entire team process. When they tend to overlook specific performance-inhibiting behaviors, they are ultimately undermining team strength. It is up to team leaders to take increasingly stern measures when intervening within the team environment. These measures often start with intervention in the group setting itself; if this proves ineffective, personal intervention with the offending member(s) must be undertaken.

Displaying Bias or Favoritism

It is easy for leaders familiar with the capabilities of individual team members to display favoritism toward one member over another. However, any open display of bias will automatically cause other team members to be less open in expressing their concerns, feedback and input. Biases and favoritism have the tendency to create a situation where specific team members become dominant, which, because of their power and influence, can result in the assertion of personal agendas and overall conflict.

Not Allowing Teams to Adequately Develop and Police Themselves

It is easy for leaders, especially within a new team environment, to assume total control over the team process. They feel that it is faster and more productive to “tell and instruct” the team in what to do than allow it to develop and chart its own course.

A team learns best when it grows through its mistakes and through problems it must solve on its own. It needs to be given the room to brainstorm and create solutions, while having the freedom to police itself when internal problems and conflicts surface due to disruptive behaviors or dominant personalities.

Team strength is developed when members are allowed to work collectively through specific challenging situations and arrive at effective solutions as a result of them.

Excerpt: Building Strong Teams: Pinpoint Management Skill Development Training Series (Majorium Business Press, Stevens Point, WI 2011) $ 17.95 USD

Related:

How Do Know If Your Teams Are Remaining Strong & Productive

Five Reasons Why Team Communications Can Deteriorate

Eight Strategies for Handling Disruptive Situations

Five Pitfalls Teams Need to Avoid

For Additional Information the Author Recommends the Following Books:

A Team’s Purpose, Function & Use: Pinpoint Leadership Skill Development Training Series

Boosting Team Communication:  Pinpoint Leadership Skills Development Training Series

Building Team Roles & Direction: Pinpoint Leadership Skill Development Training Series

Developing a Team Approach: Pinpoint Leadership Skill Development Training Series

Developing & Planning for Team Results: Pinpoint Leadership Skill Development Training Series

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. | Author | Publisher | Majorium Business Press
Author of Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Finalist – 2011 Foreword Reviews‘ Book of the Year)
Linkedin | Facebook | Twitter | Web| Blog | Catalog |800.654.4935 | 715.342.1018

Copyright © 2013 Timothy F. Bednarz, All Rights Reserved

Four Major Hindrances to Empowerment

with 3 comments

The concept of empowerment demands the full participation and interaction of all levels of an organization. Problems arise when there is a lack of commitment by leaders to actually implement empowerment strategies throughout the organization. They mouth the words of empowerment but fail to back them up with real actions to remove barriers for all employees.

Leaders have a powerful position to play in the transition and development of a company’s ability to successfully implement employee empowerment throughout the entire organization. Leaders understand that the implementation process of empowerment is concerned with more than just the mechanical aspects accompanying the transitions and change.

It is important to understand that many barriers to real empowerment exist because of the pitfalls many organizations stumble into. Most of them materialize because of a failure to focus on how to improve the more indirect value characteristics of the organization. These characteristics involve the issues of trust, responsibility, harmony, participation and cooperative group efforts. Often the responsibility lies with the leader who fears a change in the status quo and an erosion of his or her power and authority.

One of the key phrases that defines empowerment is “participative management.” Research has demonstrated a positive link between employee participation and work satisfaction and between motivation and performance. These links are hindered from occurring when leaders fall short in recognizing the potential of their employees and fail to see how much power these individuals potentially carry to solve major problems and issues. The four major pitfalls leaders encounter as they attempt to transition into empowering their employees become manifested when they begin to mix the messages of empowerment or fail to link actions to ideas. These include the following beliefs:

“Empowerment is just a term used to produce the same actions to get similar results.”

Decisions are being continually made at the top in spite of the organization saying it is empowering its employees. This mixed message supported by accompanying actions does much to undermine an employee’s willingness to participate, improve performance, and accept additional responsibility.

A traditional labor division still exists even though participation is actively sought. This is generally caused by leaders failing to delegate meaningful assignments, tasks and projects able to have a real impact on building confidence and worker satisfaction.

Many leaders believe that empowerment can still be accomplished through delegating, but that there must be some form of direct or indirect control when it comes to overseeing what is being delegated.

“We are all in this together…up to a point.”

Many leaders fail to realize one important fact: if employees directly affected by proposed changes are not involved in the decision to change, they will fight its progress.

Employees should not be told what to do, but be given the opportunity to learn where, when and what to do in specific situations. Many leaders have their own fears to overcome, generally believing that empowerment will lead to them relinquishing authority and ultimately losing their jobs. Most resistance to empowerment comes from middle management. Leaders fail to see how these fears can be reduced or eliminated by setting, measuring and evaluating performance together with their organizational work units.

Organizations often fail at the top levels when desiring to implement empowerment. They thwart its success because they are shortsighted in not training their own leaders and supervisors to understand empowerment concepts, the value these ideas have for the company as a whole, or how to personally cope with change.

Organizations do not recognize the importance of the primary role of leadership in empowerment: to support and stimulate their employees to cooperate in overcoming cross-functional barriers and eliminating fear within their own work units.

“Empowerment begins at the top and works downward.”

Many organizations feel it is better to start empowerment changes at the top and then work down to employees, even though this limits some aspects of empowerment. Upper and even middle management often argue that employees are unable to get the whole picture of the organization and are unqualified to make most important decisions, especially those that impact profitability.

Organizations often forget or fail to recognize another important aspect of empowerment: delegating responsibility to the lowest levels of the organization. Leaders need to emphasize that the decision making process should be highly decentralized, and employees in work-designed groups or teams should be responsible for their part in work processes.

Empowerment is seen as a byproduct. Many organizations look at employee empowerment as a result of an organization’s strategy and technology that focuses on how to improve costs, speed and efficiency, not as the essential ingredient to make it happen. They fail to look upon empowerment as a direct strategy to produce higher quality, productivity and efficiency.

“Employees are not the only top priority… many others are equally as important.”

Organizations often fail to realize that without productive employees they are nothing and can do nothing. They sometimes become shortsighted and fail to realize that empowerment works best when employees need the organization as much as the organization needs them.

Organizations often feel an employee’s real need lies in an increased paycheck or better benefit package. There is a general belief that employees only wish to work for monetary compensation. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and their demands grow accordingly because employees resort to this focus when they are not allowed to play an integral part in the organization.

Leaders forget to follow the golden rule: they must treat their employees the way they would want their bosses to treat them. Leaders must define what their actions and words mean to employees so that they realize concepts of fairness, respect, and consideration are an important element in the overall work culture and climate.

If you would like to learn more about effective empowerment strategies, refer to Empowerment: Pinpoint Leadership Skill Development Training Series. This training skill-pack features eight key interrelated concepts, each with their own discussion points and training activity. It is ideal as an informal training tool for coaching or personal development. It can also be used as a handbook and guide for group training discussions. Click here to learn more.

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. | Author | Publisher | Majorium Business Press
Author of Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It
and What You Can Learn From It
Linkedin | Facebook | Twitter | Web | Blog | Catalog| 800.654.4935 | 715.342.1018

Copyright © 2011 Timothy F. Bednarz, All Rights Reserved

Six Ways You Can Destroy Trust and Credibility

with 3 comments

Leaders can be so caught up in the flurry of daily tasks and activities that they easily stumble into many pitfalls resulting in broken trusts with and betrayals of employees. Many of these actions are inadvertent, yet consequences can compound over time as unresolved conflicts build in employees’ minds.

The desire for building trust is an attitude that leaders either have or must develop if they wish to be successful. It is an essential building block of leadership. If leaders are unable to nurture a workplace grounded in an appreciation for the power of trust, instead of lead they will only be able to manage and direct using fear as the primary motivator.

This is important for leaders to appreciate because of the ease in which they can stumble into past management practices that undermine rather than cultivate employee trust. It may take time and effort to foster a personal attitude of trust, but when leaders do they will find their employees more effective, cooperative and productive. The alternative is an atmosphere of mistrust and betrayal where continual conflict, ineffectiveness and quality problems reign—and worsen over time.

Many leaders can easily stumble into a myriad of pitfalls and practices that undermine their ability to build and foster trust with their employees. The stress and demands of daily work make it easy for a leader to overlook many of their actions without understanding their attendant consequences. These can include:

Inconsistency

When leaders are reactive rather than proactive, they are often inconsistent in their actions. A decision made in reaction to a specific event or circumstance can be inconsistent with a similar decision made at another time. While both may seem logical at the time, this inconsistency creates a sense of mistrust in employees since they have little or no idea what to expect from the leader’s behavior.

Other inconsistencies occur when leaders show favoritism toward one employee over another. Employees don’t feel they are treated fairly and, consequently, will not trust the leader’s judgment.

Reluctance to Share Information

Many managers and leaders are reluctant to share facts and figures with their employees because they feel unable to trust them with the information. This attitude clearly and completely sets the tone in the organization. If a leader shares information freely, he or she will find that employees will in turn begin to share information with them. This builds an atmosphere of mutual trust and open communication.

The leader reluctant to trust employees with information shuts down this critical two-way communication and limits the organization’s ability to grow and adapt to change.

Lack of Personal Trust

Leaders must learn to trust their own personal judgment and competency. They must accept that they will make mistakes, be willing to learn from them, and move on.

As leaders face a daily barrage of information, feedback and data, they must learn to take time out of the day to do nothing but “let the dust settle.” This enables them to see things more clearly and in their entirety, to identify what needs to be done, and as time spent with employees is usually more important than any other item on the agenda, where time needs to be spent in order to build trust.

Lack of Open Dialogue

Building or rebuilding trust among employees is one of the biggest challenges leaders face. Downsizing and mergers have taken a toll on workplace trust, making employees more territorial wondering if they need to work to protect their jobs. Leaders must acknowledge these fears and anxieties and open a dialogue allowing employees to vent their fears and anxieties.

Refusal to Deal with the Past

Many leaders feel that the past events and circumstances that may have caused employees to feel betrayed are just that—in the past, and should be ignored. Yet it is a clear mistake to ignore these unresolved conflicts, as they will continue to fester and undermine any efforts to reestablish trust.

As leaders open a dialogue with employees, these issues should be allowed to surface and be dealt with. While it is true that the past cannot be changed, these personal feelings must be resolved before trust can be truly established.

Lack of Clarity of Beliefs and Values

In the heat of organizational change, the beliefs and values of the organization can get lost or muddled. Leaders must take the time to clarify fundamental beliefs and translate them into commonly held and agreed upon values. This allows leaders to align their organization with the company’s values and beliefs.

Excerpt: Building & Nurturing Trust in the Workplace: The Pinpoint Leadership Skill Development Training Series (Majorium Business Press, 2011) $ 16.95 USD

If you would like to learn more about trust building techniques, refer to Building & Nurturing Trust in the Workplace: The Pinpoint Leadership Skill Development Training Series. This training skill-pack features eight key interrelated concepts, each with their own discussion points and training activity. It is ideal as an informal training tool for coaching or personal development. It can also be used as a handbook and guide for group training discussions. Click here to learn more.

Copyright © 2011 Timothy F. Bednarz All Rights Reserved

Written by Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D.

August 18, 2011 at 10:01 am

Six Critical Issues To Consider When Solving Problems

with 9 comments

When difficulties are encountered, individuals tend to adopt a mental framework that allows them to simplify, classify and structure the information they are collecting about the problem. This allows individuals to deal with the complexity of an issue in a way that they can understand and manage. The major pitfall lies in people simplifying problems in ways that compel them to choose the wrong alternatives.

All people apply their own set of perspectives, experiences and insights in solving a problem, yet it is a major mistake to create a set of assumptions based upon personal biases. These assumptions subjectively and inadequately define the problem, and thus yield faulty solutions.

When individuals allow preconceived assumptions to blind them to the facts, they set out to solve the wrong problem. The best possible options are thus overlooked, or the individual loses sight of important objectives necessary to identify the best solution.

Individuals will consciously or unconsciously frame a problem. Framing is similar to looking out a window, in that the window defines what the individual is capable of seeing. Just as a window restricts an individual’s visual perspective, frames can keep the problem solver from seeing the entire landscape of solutions.

It is important to appreciate the degree to which frames have the power to influence a solution. Therefore, problems must be framed by facts rather than preconceived perceptions, assumptions or biases. The most useful problem solving frames will highlight what is important and categorize all other aspects as secondary. Additionally, solid frames allow individuals to remain open to unanticipated facts and data that may affect the outcome or solution. When facing an issue, individuals should create a frame specifically designed to solve the problem at hand, taking into consideration the following critical factors:

Boundaries

Boundaries define the breadth and scope of the problem. As people’s boundaries are most often defined by their daily activities and tasks, they will tend to draw narrow boundaries and develop a solution from within, which creates a myopic view of the problem and potential solutions. Since boundaries influence decisions, a broad approach is advisable when defining the scope of a problem.

Reference Points

Reference points are the focal point of decisions. They are used to compare one solution with another. A simple shift in reference points can change the entire outlook of a problem. For instance, from a customer’s perspective, a problem with a product or service can be catastrophic in terms of loss of income, time and productivity; this is their reference point. On the other hand, the company representative may view the same problem as minor when in fact it may take a service person several days to attend to. The reference points are different and so are the individual perspectives. This is often where conflict and hostility arise.

Measurement Standards

The measurement standards used to view a problem and develop solutions can be problematic. If a company sells a customer a small supply of product, they might consider the problem to be minor. However, if that small supply of product is a critical element in the customer’s production and its failure has closed down their entire operation, then from their perspective the problem is major. These are critical factors that must be considered by all parties if further problems are to be prevented.

Metaphors

Many people frame problems using common metaphors related to sports, warfare or family. Thinking in these terms can influence their decisions and solutions. Good decision makers will choose metaphors carefully to highlight important aspects of the problem. However, individuals should be aware that the use of metaphors might restrict their perspective and influence solutions.

Thinking Frames

Thinking frames are the borders people create to make sense of a wide array of issues. These frames are typically a result of an individual’s personality, occupation and education. Individuals should be aware of their own thinking frames, since these bring a natural bias or set of assumptions to all problems they encounter. When individuals are aware of their biases they are able to compensate during the problem solving process.

Cultural Frames

Cultural frames are similar to thinking frames except they are created by the national, geographic, industrial and corporate cultural boundaries that someone is part of. Each aspect of a cultural frame can influence and bias an individual’s view of a problem and its potential solution.

Excerpt: Problem Solving: Pinpoint Management Skill Development Training Series (Majorium Business Press, 2011) $18.95 USD

If you would like to learn more about problem solving techniques, refer to Problem Solving: Pinpoint Management Skill Development Training Series. This training skill-pack features eight key interrelated concepts, each with their own discussion points and training activity. It is ideal as an informal training tool for coaching or personal development. It can also be used as a handbook and guide for group training discussions. Click here to learn more.

Copyright © 2011 Timothy F. Bednarz All Rights Reserved

Written by Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D.

August 4, 2011 at 10:48 am

%d bloggers like this: