Quality And Operational Excellence: Thinking Typologies For Solving Organizational Problems
Isn’t life all about problem-solving? Influential leaders can discover solutions to challenging issues in a continuously changing environment, an ability that arises from developing problem-solving skills across the board. And indeed, even though most company executives speak about addressing issues, they are typically in reactive states, which means that these problems are never entirely fixed. The symptomatic version of it resurfaces over time. So, in this blog post, we will discuss thinking typologies for addressing organizational difficulties.
Table Of Contents
Thinking Typologies: Benefits of Parallel Thinking in Group Problem Solving
The necessity and relevance of group problem-solving and decision-making are regularly highlighted in academics and the corporate sector. Because groups of individuals make the most choices nowadays, group problem-solving has become an essential topic.
Although people can learn and demonstrate an understanding of group size, cohesion, dispute, and involvement in problem-solving and decision-making, being placed in a team facing a particular problem and being required to think and interact in a way that aided the group in solving the situation is quite another story.
According to Edward de Bono, the primary impediment to thinking is confusion. We usually try to think about too many things at once. When we confront a dilemma, facts, emotions, and new ideas, all enter at once, perplexing us. This uncertainty is exacerbated when a group works on the problem. The group typically thinks at odds with one another (perpendicular) rather than in unity (parallel).
Along with the uncertainty, de Bono describes thinking as difficult owing to its vague nature and intangibility. This makes it challenging to be aware of your own thoughts and much more difficult to transmit them to others. By recognizing and labeling specific thinking patterns, we may begin to identify them and give them physical shape. We may examine our own thinking and that of others by providing a more definite form of thought. As a result, we associate thinking with solving a capital budgeting issue.
Parallel Thinking Is A Teamwork Process
Parallel thinking is, at its heart, a collaborative and, ideally, interdisciplinary approach. That is the most significant distinction between classical design and other fields. While specific business, creative, and social initiatives are focused mainly on teamwork, parallel thinking is not. Cooperation in this context indicates that individuals work as a team but are not necessarily engaged in all stages of the process.
A parallel-thinking team, on the other hand, ideally works and decisions jointly, so each team member is engaged in all stages of the process. Design thinkers employ three essential aspects to guarantee that this cooperation works effectively for the team members and provides outcomes promptly. These factors are people, location, and process.
Thinking Typologies: Six Thinking Hats
De Bono discusses implementing the strategy in his 1985 book Six Thinking Hats by purposefully wearing and removing each of the six thinking hats. The diverse hues of the hats allow the thinker to envision or envisage wearing or removing a particular hat. The appropriate time has come to evoke each mode of thought. When different types of thinking are given names, they become more tangible and, as a result, more reachable. We may create a map of the issue space by investigating a topic in this manner. In the six-thinking hats approach, the mind focuses on mapping out all possible options before deciding on the best action.
Individuals’ imaginations are engaged here. We may avoid ego protection by actively wearing several hats and utilizing imagination. It is feasible to set one’s ego aside momentarily since wearing one of the thinking hats is analogous to playing a role. The strategy also narrows our emphasis to one part of our thinking, such as the knowledge of specific facts or information or the new ideas we may come up with about an issue.
The strategy also focuses on a particular component of our thinking, such as what facts or information we know or what new notions we may come up with to handle the problem. Furthermore, it generates a set of thinking guidelines. Having a defined paradigm makes thinking typologies enjoyable. We may ask folks to put on or take off a particular thinking hat, and we may also put on or take off the hat we’ve picked. It provides a way to make thought tangible so that we may debate and act on the thinking process. According to de Bono, identifying diverse thinking strategies helps us grasp a foreign process.
Six Thinking Hats Tactic: Integrating Different Thinking Styles, Personas, And Perspectives
Green Hat
Thinking Style: Green-hat thinkers are innovative, inventive, and seek alternatives, yet may not consider the repercussions.
Typical response: “Of course, we can always purchase a new system.”
Blue Hat
Thinking Style: Blue-hat thinkers typically view issues from a broader perspective. They can step back and consider the larger picture.
Typical response: “Once the new technology is implemented, the whole organization’s processes will be accelerated.”
Yellow Hat
Thinking Style: Yellow hat thinkers are optimistic and constructive and search for methods to make things work.
Typical response: “If we all set our minds to it, I’m certain we can make the old system work.”
Black Hat
Thinking Style: Black hat thinkers like to play ‘devil’s advocate,’ pointing out what may go wrong.
Typical response: “The new system is just part of the answer; what about our supplier’s late deliveries? It won’t fix that issue.”
White Hat
Thinking Styles: White hat thinkers are more concerned with facts, numbers, and reasoning.
Typical response: “How much will the new system cost, and how many consumers can it handle?”
Red Hat
Thinking Style: Red hat thinkers rely on intuition, hunches, and prior experience.
Typical response: “I have a good feeling about it; I’m certain it will work since I’ve seen it work for other firms.”
Providing A Compelling Argument For Parallel Thinking
Most of the world’s main issues continue precisely because we have such an excellent way of problem-solving. This sentence is not meant to be snarky. We do have a fantastic problem-solving strategy. However, it is so excellent that we have come to assume it will fix all difficulties. As a result, we have not bothered to design any alternative way. The excellent is often the adversary of the best. When something is excellent, we tend to rest on our laurels.
What is this wonderful, time-honored way of problem-solving? It is another illustration of the fundamental notion that if you remove the wrong things, you will be left with the good ones. So, in general, you assess the issue, find the reason, and then proceed to eliminate the cause. The issue is fixed because the source of the problem is eliminated. It works! De Bono contends that this overall strategy is straightforward and effective when it works. However, there are specific issues for which no cause can be identified. Other problems have several causes that cannot be eliminated. Then there are instances where you can identify the source but not eliminate it. What should we do in such cases?
By adopting a parallel thinking position, we acknowledge the greatness of the general technique of treating a problem by finding and eliminating the source. Still, we also need to do something about those situations when the method just does not work. Are they intractable issues? Perhaps, but we should at least attempt some alternative approaches.
Conclusion
Now, why don’t you attempt this fantastic thinking typologies technique in your teams? Choose a conversation subject (e.g., an idea a team came up with). Make someone in charge of the meeting (blue hat). Explain each hat in turn and allow the group to explore the issue from that hat’s perspective. Encourage them to record the dialogue on a whiteboard so that you may build on it later.