THE EFFECTIVE PROBLEMSOLVER #064
Many activists believe that achieving better outcomes hinges on telling people what people do.
They invest considerable effort in convincing others of the best course of action to take.
Do this. Do that. Change that system.
Yet, after years of advocacy, both successful and unsuccessful, I’ve come to a profound realization:
Being an effective changemaker is less about altering actions and more about reshaping how people perceive the problem.
Shifting focus from changing actions to changing mindsets is transformative.
It significantly enhances the likelihood of achieving desired results, even amidst changing conditions.
However, there exist two divergent approaches to altering mindsets:
One appears straightforward and noble but proves rarely effective, while the other, though complex and seemingly less principled, never fails to yield results.
Today, I’ll dissect the assumptions underlying each approach and provide one practical exercise to decode the full spectrum of potential solutions.
The conventional Certainty Approach
The prevalent approach in the social sector revolves around fostering certainty regarding the facts of a problem and its solutions.
Let’s call it the Certainty Approach.
It entails narrowing stakeholder perspectives on the problem and solidifying these perspectives into unquestioned orthodoxy.
The assumption is that if everyone agrees on certain facts, solving the problem should be straightforward.
Here are the 3 most common orthodoxies, or assumptions about local problems that my clients say are rigidly held in their communities:
- We can solve the problem completely.
- We can trace the problem back to one root cause.
- There is one best solution.
However, this approach overlooks a critical aspect: certainty on the problem alone isn’t sufficient.
The next part of the Certainty Approach is to promote certainty about how the problem should be solved.
Here are 3 of the most common orthodoxies about strategy that my clients face in their communities:
- A formal, representative stakeholder group must be created and given decision-making power.
- Consensus on the solution is required.
- The solution must be innovative.
While these notions sound appealing, they falter in practice.
Why?
Because they are built upon flawed assumptions that constrain the ability to perceive the problem clearly and the myriad ways to address it.
Let me show you an alternative.
The Uncertainty Approach
If there’s one thing I’ve learned about pursuing social change over the years, it’s about the value of questioning my own assumptions.
This is because every assumption effectively closes down the realm of alternative possibilities.
It feels like you’re getting closer to the truth, but you’re actually just tightening the blinders and narrowing your perspective.
Instead of adopting ever more assumptions about what must be true about the problem, it’s more productive to interrogate each assumption against alternative possibilities.
Let’s call this the Uncertainty Approach.
Here’s how Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison capture the essence of this philosophy:
“Epistemology is less about trailblazing than about path clearing. Epistemology seeks first and foremost to identify and remove sources of error, rather than to define the nature of truth.”
Put another way, this approach doesn’t seek absolute truth about the problems we face.
Rather, by questioning our own assumptions, it seeks to reduce our mistaken and limiting beliefs about the problem and its potential solutions.
A practical exercise in counterfactuals
An effective way to adopt the Uncertainty Approach is to brainstorm counterfactuals to existing assumptions in question form.
Let’s apply this to the beliefs mentioned earlier:
- There is one best solution → Could there be multiple possible solutions?
- We can trace the problem back to one root cause → What if there were many interrelated causes?
- We can solve the problem completely once and for all → What if this problem will always exist and have to be managed in some ongoing way?
- A formal, representative stakeholder group must be created and given decision-making power → How can individuals take permissionless action for the good of all?
- Consensus on the solution is required→ What actions can we take that don’t require everyone to agree?
- The solution must be innovative → Could minor changes to existing practices make an impact?
Notice how these counterfactual questions expand rather than restrict the realm of possibilities.
By actively questioning our own orthodoxies and challenging assumptions, we unlock new avenues for problem-solving and drive more effective outcomes.
As systems thinker Peter Singer aptly puts it,
"New insights fail to get put into practice because they conflict with deeply held internal images of how the world works, images that limit us to familiar ways of thinking and acting."
Let’s commit to letting go of our certainties so we can be open to the many ways our present challenges can be solved.
See you next week.
==
Whenever you’re ready, there are two ways I can help you:
→ I’m a strategic advisor for the toughest societal problems like poverty, crime and homelessness. People come to me when they want to stop spinning their wheels and get transformative, systems-level change.
→ I’m a coach for emerging and executive leaders in the social and public sectors who want to make progress on their biggest goals and challenges.
Let’s find out how I can help you become transformational.
