I-Message – Taming Wicked Problems

I- Message: The Essential Skill

Joseph Bentley — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 19:19:06 +0000

February 28, 2017

“What the world needs now is love, sweet love,” sang Dione Warwick in the 1960’s. Published in 1965 with lyrics by Hal David and music by Burt Bacharach, “What the World Needs Now is Love” was a blockbuster of a hit, recored by at least 100 of the best known singers of the time. “What the world needs now is love, sweet love,” they sang, “It’s the only thing that there’s too little of.”

Actually, love is not the only thing of which we have “too little of.” We could use more clean water and air, enough food for the hungry, quality education, health care for all, more functional families, good government, and perhaps most important, if not peace, then an absence of war, and on and on.

What the World Really Needs

The list of things that are needed besides “love, sweet love,” is a long one, and even though progress has been made on some items, and some have been removed from the list, others are being added continuously. In an earlier essay, I quoted the Buddha who said that we always have 83 problems. When we are able to remove one from the list another one takes its place, and so once again we have 83. We will never have fewer than 83 problems, said the Buddha.

Organizational theorist Russell Ackoff used different words to express the same idea: “No matter how many [problems] are solved,” he wrote,” an infinite number will always remain to be solved. Every solution to a problem generates several new problems, and the new ones are generally more challenging than the ones from which they sprang.”

And here we face a conundrum: Most of the “solutions” to the 83 problems on our lists cannot not be successfully addressed by ourselves. Most of our important problems involve other people, and so whatever we do with them, other people must be involved. For many, this is unhappy news. In a society that glorifies individualism and self-sufficiency, it is difficult to accept that almost everything we need or want in order to live satisfying and successful lives is under the control of other people. Recognition, esteem, affection, respect, successful careers, honor, a successful family, nourishing food, clear water, flush toilets, come only becasuse people help us get them. And when it comes to relationships with others, what we need and want can be offered and made available, or they can be withheld.

Those of us who are good at involving and enlisting other people are fortunate. “People, people who need people,” sang Barbra Streisand in another song from the 1960’s, “are the luckiest people in the world.” And those who are consistently unsuccessful at cooperating with others are more than unlucky. They are frequently relegated to the sidelines, destined to watch rather than be in the middle of the game.

What is the Question?

On the afternoon of the operation that resulted in her death, Gertrude Stein, confused and uncertain, asked her companion, Alice Toklas, “What is the answer?” When Toklas did not answer, Stein reportedly said, “Well then, what is the question?”

Evidently, Stein never got her answer. But here is a question that in a way is the question, and so one worth taking seriously:

“How can we increase our chances of being successful in our important relationships, in our careers, and in our lives?”

Here is The Answer – Cooperation

As it turns out, there is not only an answer but a best answer: By mastering the skills of cooperating and working successfully with other people. In his autobiography, A Long Walk to Freedom, Nelson Mandela, among the most the most honored and respected leaders of our times, was unequivocal: “The central challenge of our times is finding a better way to work together and solve problems,” he wrote. The social sciences agree. Joshua Greene, among the most respected social psychologists in the United States and author of Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them was equally clear: “The problem of cooperation is the central problem of social existence.”

Confronted by a continuous welter of problems that come at us in unpredictable ways and, at times, at warp speed, and facing a reality that requires that we work with other people to address them effectively, what “the world needs now” are ways to increase the chances of successful cooperation with others.

Here, then, in a nutshell is our #1 challenge: It is only by cooperating successfully with the important people in our lives – our spouses and partners, our friends, our neighbors, our colleagues and bosses at work, – that we are able to find and live the Good Life. And yet, gaining that necessary cooperation is complicated, something many people are unable to achieve.

Cooperation is Easy, Difficult, and Impossible

Easy: Under some circumstances cooperation is, as they say, a no-brainer. Anyone can do it. When there is little risk to our self-esteem; when there seems to be little cost in cooperation; when we perceive that cooperation will bring benefits; and most importantly when we share interests – what I want is what you want and vice versa – then cooperation is an easy choice.

Difficult: In other situations, cooperation is difficult. While there are many reasons for resisting cooperation, here are several of the most important ones:

– We prefer to stay home: “Home is where we start from,” writes poet T. S. Eliot in “East Coker.” “As we grow older/The world becomes stranger, the patterns more complicated…” Home is where we all started from and for most it was a place of safety and refuge. If “home” is a metaphor for the known, the familiar, and the comfortable, then “leaving home,” – putting part of one’s hopes and aspiration into the hands of another – is often difficult. One’s “comfort zone” turns out to be too comfortable.

– We decide that the immediate costs are high while the possible benefits are uncertain. When the prospect of cooperating with another person means added work, risks of failure, and uncertainty about future benefits, many resist .

– When reality is limited only to what we can see or experience and we are unable to see further than our own narrow reality, then cooperation with others is an abstraction. “Every man takes the limits his field of vision for the limits of the world,” wrote philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. If we are confined to the limits of our own view of things, the idea of cooperation with others makes no sense. It exists as no more than questionable advice.

– We lack the needed skills to negotiate relationships that can result in effective cooperation.

Impossible: And finally there are times when, no matter the motivation, no matter the skill, no matter the importance, cooperation is an impossibility. As in the old saying “It takes two to tango.” If one person, or group is determined not to cooperate, then it won’t happen. Cooperation can not be forced. Often, this refusal comes from one person’s demands to run the show, to make all decisions, to be in control. An example is found in Herman Wouk’s The Caine Mutiny. At one point in the novel, Lt. Commander Philip Queeg, in command of an antique minesweeper in the backwaters of WW II, sends a message to his officers and crew: “Lt. Maryk, you may tell the crew for me that there are four ways of doing things aboard my ship: The right way, the wrong way, the Navy way and my way. They do things my way, and we’ll get along.” If someone insists that it must be “my way”or nothing, then there can be no cooperation.

Where Do We Start? Learn the I-Message

We start with this basic truth: Any hope for success with almost all problems requires conversation. And when the problem being addressed involves more than one person, the only way forward is for those conversations to focus upon cooperation.

Leaving aside situations where cooperation is easy or where it is impossible, becoming skilled in using the language of cooperation is the best alternative for improving the prospects for working together. At the very center of conversations that lead to cooperation is a language structure that psychologists call the I- Message. Basically, it is a message that one person sends to another or to a group with this information: “I am concerned about this issue, event, or situation. It is important to me, and I would like your help in understanding it and deciding what should be done in order to make it better.” It is among the most effective tools that helps us move from what isn’t working now or hasn’t worked in the past to how we can work together now and in the future to make things better.

The the basic structure of an I-Message consists of four parts:

A non-evaluative, timely description of a situation, event, or incident. Three elements here are crucial: Description means that the event is public knowledge. Anyone who paid attention could have seen it: “You interrupted me three times in the last five minutes,” not “You are really rude!” Non-evaluative means that you add no inference to suggest that what happened was either good or bad. You do not suggest that what happened was “dumb,” “stupid,” or “unbelievable.” Timely means making reference to an event or situation that occured in the past, and the smaller the time gap between when it occurred and when it is discussed, the better.
This is followed by an I-statement which communicates one’s emotional reaction to the event or situation ( real problems always involve some level of emotional arousal): “I am confused…” “I was frustrated..” “I was really upset..” “It made me very happy…”
A signal that one is ready to listen to the other’s point-of-view: “I would appreciate hearing how you saw it.”
A move to find a better way in the future: Once both parties have reported what they saw, heard, etc. the focus moves to working together to put in place more effective ways to deal with the problem in the future.

Here is a prototype of an I-Message exchange:

John: I had expected to have the Acme Project report delivered to my office by 4:00 pm yesterday, something we had agreed to last week. I had to wait until 7:00 pm for it to arrive and by then it was too late to get it to the auditors. I was really frustrated: first, because I didn’t get it at the time we agreed, and second, I couldn’t reach you and had to wait around for it for almost three hours, and third, finance couldn’t sign off until this morning. So now, we’re a whole day late in getting it to Cleveland. I need to know what happened.

Mary: John, it’s my fault. I feel terrible that I let you down. I can go into all of the reasons but they would only sound like excuses.

John: Well, I know that stuff happens, but this was really a blow to me. I wanted that report out of here yesterday. I do appreciate your owning up to it though. What I would like to talk about now is what can we do so it won’t happen again.

Adding Value with I-Messages

Skillful use of the I-Message helps us find our way through interpersonal issues that can be fraught with tension, resentment, and even danger. Here are some of the most important times when effective use of an I-Mesage adds great value:

Being Understood: First of all, and perhaps most important, we all want to be understood. Effective use of I-Messages allows us to share with others how we feel, what we think, what is important, when we are confused, etc. It is the gateway to being understood.
Dealing with Conflict, Misunderstanding and Disagreement: Among all of the interpersonal challenges, facing conflict head-on is the one many people muff. Often we avoid it when we can, and when we can’t, trying to deal with it often make things worse.
Discipling and Correcting: Another hurdle for almost everyone is communicating to others that their actions are unacceptable and need to change. Most of us avoid the necessary and unpleasant role of being a disciplinarian – we all carry emotional scars from failed encounters – but there are times when it is necessary.
Expressing Appreciation: Strange as it sounds in the abstract, many us are uncomfortable expressing appreciation and gratitude. I-messages are the most effective way of getting these conversations underway (“Alice, I want to know how grateful I am for your support yesterday in the meeting. You seemed to sense that I was groping for a way to go, and when you jumped in with your comments, it really got me out of a jam!”)
Telling the Truth: At some deep level, we want to tell “the truth,” and have it told back to us by others. When a person accurately says when he or she thinks, wants, sees, hears, feels, – and does so accurately – that is as close to the truth as he or she can get.
Giving and Getting Feedback: Even though we often make strenuous efforts to avoid it, we all want – and need – feedback from others. Useful feedback, the kind that can help us change from ineffectual behaviors to effective ones, is best when it is given with timely and skillful use of the I-Message.
Being Recognized: Among the most important things we want and need from others is to be recognized when we do good work. Using an I-Mesage is the most effective way of making sure these powerful messages are communicated.

Guidelines for Effective I-Messages

“Own” the problem. Signal that you care about this issue or situations and you want to see changes made.
Examine your motives. Do you want things to go better or do you want to get in a punch in the guise of wanting to help?
Check to make sure that the time, place and situation are appropriate for a serious conversation.
Describe the event, situation of behavior. (“We have been talking about the first item on the agenda for almost an hour.”)
Share your reactions, feelings, opinions, preferences. (“I’m getting anxious that we won’t get much further before we run out of time”).
Invite others to share their observations. (What do the rest of you think?”)
Listen carefully to what people say.
Clarify “gaps” in perceptions. (This is helpful. I can see that I’m the only one who’s concerned.”)
Work with others to find better ways of dealing with the issue.
Continue until there is agreement of how to move forward.

Cooperation is Especially Difficult When the Problem is Wicked

When our problems are wicked, then cooperation goes beyond being desirable. It is essential. Examining in depth how author and educator Larry Cuban defined wicked problems can help us understand why.

After almost 50 years as a educator, Larry Cuban summed up his career: “I had plenty of problems…to juggle.” Eventually, as he wrestled with the challenges of teaching, of administering, and finally, as a professor, conducting research into ways to improve educational effectiveness and engineer school reform, he had an epiphany: We have made so little progress in improving education, he decided, because we have not understood the problems we face are wicked and not tame. Unless teachers, administers and researchers experience the same epiphany, he decided, little progress with educational reform could be expected.

In How Can I Fix It: Finding Solutions and Managing Dilemmas, he defined wicked problems this way:

Wicked problems are ill-defined, ambiguous, complicated, interconnected situations packed with potential conflict. In organizations [and in relationships] people compete for limited resources, hold conflicting values, and wrestle with diverse expectations.

Why is cooperation so difficult? Here we find some important clues:

Ill-defined, ambiguous situations will result in our seeing things in different ways. We will not agree on what’s going on, let alone what needs to be done;
Interconnected situations means that no one acts alone: what one does affects everyone else;
Situations “packed” with conflict means that some kind of “fighting” is to be expected;
Competition for limited resources almost always leads to a dynamic situation where an individual or group goes after a win, which means that someone will have to lose.
Holding conflicting values means that there is danger that one side will be tempted to see the other side as wrong, unethical or, in the worst case, immoral.
When people hold different expectations about behaviors and projects, then judgements about effectiveness or progress will differ.

Each of these aspects of wicked problems is enough to derail even the best intentions at cooperation. Unless these dynamics are examined openly, factored into the conversations, and then addressed appropriately, working together on “messy” issues becomes impossible.

I-Message is an Important Tool

In addition to “love, sweet love,” what the world needs now are better ways of working together – in short, learning how to cooperate. This is true not only for the world, but also for couples, work teams, organizations and governments. When we find ourselves needing to cooperate with others in addressing difficult problems, there is no skill more important that the effective use of the I-Message to initiate and sustain meaningful, productive conversations.

Skills are, in one sense, a set of tools, and effective use of the I-Message is among the most effective tool that is available to us for grappling with wicked problems. As the poet Marge Piercy says, there are times when we should “pick up a tool..and get ready to make it new.”

Attention is love, what we must give
children, mothers, fathers, pets,
our friends, the news, the woes of others.
What we want to change we curse and then
pick up a tool. Bless whatever you can
with eyes and hands and tongue. If you
can’t bless it, get ready to make it new.

Becoming Skilled: Fierce Conversations

Joseph Bentley — Thu, 12 Jan 2017 19:13:34 +0000

January 8, 2017

After being named CEO of Microsoft in February, 2014, Satya Nadella turned his attention to what he saw as his most important problem: the effectiveness of the executive team. He approached the problem by inviting the members to begin a conversation about the question, “What is the purpose of the leadership team?”

Nadella’s concerns about purpose arose from his years as a member of the team before being promoted to CEO. The team had operated in the past “as if we had the formula [for success] figured out,” he said to Adam Bryant, columnist for the New York Times, on February 21, 2014. Convinced that the old formula would no longer work, he said, “Now it is about discovering a new formula. “The questions that he was struggling with as he thought about a new formula were foundational:

“How do we take the intellectual capital of 130,000 and innovate where none of the category definitions of the past will matter…since any organizational structure you have today is irrelevant because no competition or innovation is going to respect those boundaries…[and] how do you create that self-organizing capability to drive innovation and [also] be focused?”

Nadella was wise enough to know that it would be a huge mistake to appear in the first meeting with his answers to these questions as part of a Power Point presentation. Rather, he made it clear that it was time for a conversation. His message was: “We are going to talk to each other until we come up with something we can agree on.”

The challenge introduced by the new CEO was central to the future of Microsoft. In order to do justice to the importance of their task, what was needed was a language that could match the importance of the goal. An important rule of thumb is “never small-talk a big problem.” Frivolous, meandering, phony, posturing,”hot-air” bloviating exchanges would not do. Though at the time they may not have been able to identify clearly the name of an appropriate language for wicked problems (and theirs were clearly wicked) there is such a language: What they needed was “Fierce Conversations.”

What Are Fierce Conversations?

Describing some conversations as fierce may confuse. After all, doesn’t fierce suggest menacing, aggressive, threatening, cruel? Fierce is defined in the dictionary as “marked by extreme intensity of emotions or convictions; inclined to react violently.” However, if you turn to Roget’s Thesaurus and look for synonyms of fierce you will find a different and more helpful perspective: Fierce can also mean “robust, intense, strong, powerful, passionate, eager.”

Susan Scott, in Fierce Conversations, writes, “In its simplest form, a fierce conversation is one in which we come out from behind ourselves into the conversation and make it real.” What a radical idea: Coming out from behind ourselves! No more hiding behind excessive caution or exaggerated politeness. Real conversations rather than phony ones!

What is a “real” conversation? It is one in which those who are participating express clearly what they think, prefer, mean, want, support, disagree with and wonder about without making others in the room angry, defensive, hostile, or inclined to retaliate. Real conversations move us from hiding, distorting, avoiding, smoothing over and dodging, to openness, honesty, clarity and accuracy. “Before Fierce” says Scott, there is “beating around the bush, dancing around the subject, skirting the issues. An ‘us vs. them,’ ‘me vs. you’ culture. [There is] terminal ‘niceness,’ avoiding or working around problems… No one engages. Nothing changes.”

“After Fierce” (when it is done skillfully) we can expect:

Naming and addressing issues truthfully and effectively.
Achieving high levels of alignment, collaboration, and partnership in the relationship, family or organization.
Effectively confronting attitudinal, performance, or behavioral problems.

Microsoft’s New Purpose

In his interview with the New York Times, Nadella gave no details about the nature of the conversations that led the team to define their purpose in leading Microsoft, but I have no hesitation in concluding that they were not frivolous, phony, or superficial ones. Rather, I believe that they were serious, intense, and “real.” In a word, Fierce.

Here is what emerged from their conversations: “The framework we came up with is the notion that our purpose is to bring clarity, alignment, and intensity. What is it we want done? Are we aligned in order to be able to get it? And are we pursuing that with intensity? That’s really the job.”

For Wicked Problems, Real Conversations are Required.

In seeking an agreement about their own purpose, Nadella and the executive team were facing a classical wicked problem: There were no pre-determined answers, no formulae, no recipes, no consultants with answers to turn to: they had a task that would never be finished. They had to figure it out from themselves, and the only way to do this was for them to sit together in a room and talk until they arrived at a place where they felt satisfied. What was essential in order to reach their goal was to use language that was robust enough to get them through and over the inevitable obstacles and hurdles.

And once they agreed on clarity, alignment, and intensity, they faced even more difficult and complex wicked problems going forward. First among them was the challenge for the executive team to not only understand what they meant by clarity, alignment, and intensity, but then to translate this understanding into behavior. After all, naming something is not doing it. Giving a name to one’s goal is a necessary first step, but if anything is to change, it cannot stop there. In order for clarity, alignment and intensity to take root and flourish, behaviors that are congruent with the terms used to define them are required. For example, after agreeing that once the alignment was important, it was crucial that the team members moved beyond talking and actually begin “acting” aligned.

And their challenges did not end with themselves. After the executive team members understood and behaved in ways that led to increased clarity, greater alignment, and helpful intensity, there were even more daunting tasks on the horizon. Getting buy-in from the 130,000 employees of Microsoft for clarity, alignment, and intensity, and then ensuring that these values and behaviors became part of the organizational culture, was a gargantuan and never-ending undertaking.

Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, understood clearly the importance of real conversations. In a Harvard Business Review article in 1989, Welch said:

Real communication takes countless hours of eyeball to eyeball, back and forth. It means listening more than talking. It’s not pronouncements on a videotape, it’s not announcements in a newspaper. It is human beings coming to see and accept things through a constant interactive process aimed at consensus. And it must be absolutely relentless.

From Flabby to Fierce

When the issues are important, complex and messy – in a word, wicked – and addressing them is important, then fierce conversations are needed. Unfortunately, many of the conversations are flabby rather than fierce.

Flabby conversations are the opposite of fierce ones: apathy is in charge; no one seems to really care about what is being discussed; wishy-washiness is the norm; people seem distracted, giving the appearance that they are bored and would like to be elsewhere; “going-through-the motions” reigns; the many variations of hiding are common; people are delighted and relieved when it is finally over; and reluctant to show up for the next meeting!

When the conversations are fierce, there is electricity in the air. Something interesting, even compelling, is happening, and there is hope that it may lead somewhere that will make a difference. People lean forward, make eye contact and listen intently. Difficult issues are put on the table and treated with the respect they deserve. People are open with their disagreements. Conflicts, even confrontations, are common and, rather than being destructive, are helpful. There is an honesty and authenticity in the way people speak and the things that they say. There is little doubt about where people stand, what they think, and what they want.

Where to Begin

Getting started with learning and practicing fierce conversations includes three steps: Listening to oneself, (gaining awareness); beginning to speak “fierce;” and learning the foundation for fierce conversations.

Begin with listening – to oneself.

When the goal is to move from flabby to fierce, the point of departure is always with oneself. In order for couples, families, and teams to engage in fierce conversations when they are necessary, individuals first need to become aware of the language they use for dealing with problems. “Begin by listening to oneself as never before,” suggests Susan Scott in Fierce Conversations:

Begin to overhear yourself avoiding the topic, changing the subject, holding back, telling yourself little lies (and big ones), being imprecise in your language, being uninteresting even to yourself.”

Practice “Fierce.”

“At least once today,” suggests Scott, “when something inside of you says ‘This is an opportunity to be fierce,’ stop for a moment, take a deep breath, and come out from behind yourself into the conversation and make it real. Say something that is true for you.”

Here are some possibilities:

I see it differently.
I would prefer to deal with it today rather than next week.
That’s an interesting idea but here’s why I don’t think it will work for us.
When you cut me off in the middle of a sentence, I am frustrated and offended.
Hey, I don’t find it helpful when you avoid the issue or change the subject.
If you expect my support I want you to ask me for it rather than just assume that I will back you.
You’ve been going on for almost ten minutes and I’m completely lost. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
I found your presentation creative and very interesting. Way to go!

The I-Message is the Foundation

The most useful language for fierce conversations will always include what is called an I-Message. As the name implies, it requires us to speak for ourselves and share our perceptions and preferences. It asks us to disclose what is going on “inside:” What we see, hear, think, want, choose, prefer. For example, rather than asking “When are you going to learn how to get your message across?” we say,” I tried to follow what you were saying but got lost. Help me out, will you?”

In a future essay I will spell out in more detail the structure and substance of I-messages: What they are, why they are crucial to effective conversations, and how and when to use them.

Real is Rare

Real conversations in which we share what is important are rare.”Everything is usually so masked or perfumed or disguised in the world,” writes Ann Lamont in Traveling Mercies, that people are never able come to know each other. And yet “…it’s so touching when you get to see something real and human…when people have seen you at your worst, you don’t have to put on the mask as much. And that gives us license to try on that radical hat of liberation, the hat of self-acceptance.”

While rare, real conversations can also be incredibly meaningful. After a “Fierce Conversation” workshop led by Susan Scott, a participant reported with tears in his eyes, “I’ve longed for conversations like this all of my life but I didn’t know that they were possible. I don’t think I can settle for anything less going forward.”

Few of us who are out there “playing the game” will be surprised that things are “masked, perfumed or disguised.” We are not only aware of it, we often participate. Given that many situations in our judgmental and evaluative society are win-lose contests where winners move on and losers disappear, it makes good sense to be cautious about what to say and how to say it. When survival is the number one issue, going into hiding and staying there, sharing only what is absolutely required and even then, keeping it safe and superficial, can be a smart strategy.

It is also hugely unproductive. When things matter, there are significant costs to “safety first” strategies in conversations. If important issues are ignored, postponed or denied, they will almost always get worse. “Sometimes you have a little problem and you don’t fix it,” says the sheriff in Cormac McCarthy’s No Country for Old Men, “and then all of a sudden it ain’t a little problem any more. You understand what I’m telling you?”

“Yessir, I do,” answers the young deputy.

Not Easy, Not Quick – But Worth It.

Are fierce conversations easy or quick? Are they panaceas that will solve our most difficult problems? No and no. But if we know anything, we know that things of real value are never easy, quick or simple. When the problems we face are central to the well-being of important relationships and to success in our careers, then we really have no choice but to face up to them and begin. Flabby conversations never get us where we want to go. What can be infinitely more productive is to put on the Fierce Conversation Hat and begin. “When you come out from behind yourself into the conversation and make it real, whatever happens from there will happen,” writes Susan Scott. “It could go well or it could be a little bumpy, but at least you will have taken the plunge. You will have said one real thing today, one thing that was real for you. And something will have been set in motion.”

Working with Nested Problems

Joseph Bentley — Sat, 20 Jun 2015 02:45:40 +0000

June 18

In the wide world of problems, there are solved and unsolved problems. Solved problems are dead problems, and few people except historians have much interest in them. When people find themselves up against a problem that has been solved before, what is helpful is to look for previous solutions: Previous experience; recipes and formulae; answers in the backs of books; experts who know what to do and how to do it; our own memory banks.

On the other hand, unsolved problems are not dead but very much alive. They are challenging and often interesting as well. Some of them are troubling. Some eventually are solved, and so are killed. Others, however, do not get solved, and remain on our radar screens to be visited over and over. Eventually, some are determined to be mysteries. We understand that mysteries do not get solved, so we respond with contemplation and awe. Unsolved problems – the “Not-Mysteries” – tend to remain with us until we either choose to take them on or have no choice but to deal with them.

Tame or Wicked Problems

Problems that can be solved are tame: Fixing a computer; doing the shopping for the week; writing a short story; sending astronauts to the moon and bringing them home safely; making an omellete; getting elected to office. They have a beginning, a middle and an end. They can be defined, goals can be set and achieved and, once they are solved, they are put aside. Nevertheless, many tame problems reappear over and over (computers need to be fixed every now and then) but, since we know there are solutions, and we know what they are, we don’t lose much sleep over them. Facing up to them becomes routine.

Problems that have no single solution but still must be wrestled with are mostly wicked: Creating an effective work team; raising children; giving and receiving help; dealing with drug addiction; making a successful marriage; establishing quality in customer service; achieving excellence in education; reducing global warming; governing. While they seem to have a beginning, most have had a long and complicated history. The “beginning” of a wicked problem is when someone enters the picture. The first thing a wise person does when he or she begins to work on a wicked problem is to learn as much as possible about what people have done with it in the past.

What wicked problems especially do not have are endings. A person may give up and walk away, may choose another challenge, may ask for a transfer, may try to turn it into a tame problem (getting a divorce for example), but when a person is fully engaged with a wicked problem, what she or he cannot expect is that it will be over. What wicked problems consist of are only “beginnings” and “middles.”

Tame and Wicked Problems

In the world of problems that are alive then, there are solvable problems (tame) and unsolvable problems (wicked) and then there are problem that are both tame and wicked. These are what I call Nested Problems. They are problem situations that contain elements that can be solved, and elements that cannot be solved.

Here is the definition of Nested Problems that appeared in the previous essay: Nested Problems are to be found in problem situations which, while they have the appearance of being tame (and therefore seem to be solvable), are actually “bundled” problems consisting of tame problems nested within wicked ones.

Two points about nested problems: First, they often are perceived by problem solvers as tame problem and so are treated that way.

And second: It is only after the tame part of the problem has been “solved” and this solution is broadcast to others in one way or another that it becomes apparent by their reactions that the problem was not only a tame one but a wicked one as well.

An Example: Hong Kong’s Wild Boar Problem

The headline in the Wall Street Journal on June 9, 2015 describes Hong Kong’s problem: “In Hong Kong, Wild Boar Population has Locals Squealing.” The wild boar problem in Hong Kong seems to be straightforward: Hong Kong is being overrun with wild boars and the people want something done about them.

The Sai Kung Wild Pig Hunting Club has a solution: “Gun the pesky pigs down.” Chan Kang, 72-year old leader of the wild pig hunting club explains the logic of killing the pigs: “They are wild animals and not pets. They are fierce and not kind.” And now, said Kang, the boars are growing in number and “fear no man.” In years past, said Kang, when the hunters were allowed to shoot to kill, the city had no wild boar problem.

The times have changed. Today hunting of the boars is in decline. So far in 2015, only 3 boars have been killed, compared to “over a hundred a year” a decade ago.

Why no more killing the wild boars? The answer is the emergence of the Hong Kong Wild Boar Concern Group, which argues vigorously against killing the boars. “They are cute,” the members of the Concern Group argue, and tell Hong Kong residents to “enjoy the chance encounter” when they meet up with a boar, some of which can weigh up to 450 pounds. Members of the Wild Boar Concern Group view the boars as part of the natural world that, in an environment that has been heavily altered by humans, need to be preserved. Roni Wong, 31-year old co-founder of the Wild Boar Concern Society, hands out pamphlets that feature drawings of adorable, fuzzy boars, and urges residents to “keep calm,” when they meet a boar and “definitely do not call the police.”

Hong Kong’s wild boar dilemma is clearly a nested problem. What used to be a tame problem with a clear solution – shoot to kill – has become a nested one: People have organized successfully against the tame solution. Shooting boars as a solution is no longer the accepted thing to do.

Taking Action with Nested Problems

Step 1: Determine if the problem a nested one.

Although most important problems are nested, not all are. What is important before beginning to work on a problem is to determine if it is nested.

In Leadership on the Line, Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky use the term “bundled” to describe problems that have both tame and wicked elements. “Most problems,” they write, “come bundled with both technical and adaptive aspects” (their terms for tame and wicked). For them, the necessary first step in working with nested problems is to “distinguish between them in order to decide which to tackle first and with what strategy.”

Distinguishing the presence of tame and wicked elements in a problem situation can best be accomplished by identifying elements that correspond to the definitions of tame and wicked problems. The definition of tame problems includes the following:

Goals can be reached. The gaps between the present state and the future state can be identified and successfully closed.
Correct solutions and true answers can be found.
Problem solving processes can be used that are primarily convergent in nature. Problem solvers move forward by eliminating possible solutions until they converge upon the correct solution or answer.
There is a beginning (“Here is an interesting problem for us to take on”), a middle (“We think this will fix it”), and an end (“Problem solved”).
Several problem solvers working on the same problem in different places can be expected to arrive at the same answer.

The definition of wicked problem is quite different:

Goals exist, but they cannot be fully achieved. Moving toward the goal is possible – this is called progress – but what is achieved are “near misses.” Gaps can never be fully closed, only narrowed. We can get close to our goals, but never reach them.
Rather than finding true or correct solutions, what is possible are “solutions” that are Good Enough, Better Than the Others, or The Best We Can Do.
The problem solving process always begins with Divergent efforts: “Let chaos reign,” said Andy Grove, CEO of Intel. Finding and examining many possible alternative “solutions” gets us started. When there are on the table as many possible alternatives as can be imagined, then the group shifts to a process of convergence. “Reining in chaos” sets the new direction, resulting in the selection of the “best” alternative.
Rather than clear beginnings or final endings, what people face with wicked problems are “mostly middles.”
Five problem solvers working in separate room on the same wicked problem will end up with five different problem definitions, and five different plans for dealing with them.

Step 2: Solve the solvable problems.

Once it is clear that the problem being considered is “bundled” or nested, the next step is to examine the tame part of the problem, define it clearly, and decide if it can be solved without creating more problems. In my previous post I reported that the keepers at the Copenhagen zoo believed that the problem they had with Marius was a tame one and they assumed, falsely as it turned out, that it was one they could solve themselves. If they had paused long enough to ask the question, “If we go ahead with our plan to get rid of our ‘surplus’ giraffe by killing Marius, is it possible that other people might be upset?” By not rushing to their premature solution, they might have saved themselves a great deal of grief.

Over the past decades, psychologist John Gottman and his colleagues have worked with hundreds of couples who were struggling with marital problems. In the process they gradually came to a profound insight: All conflicts, they realized, “…fall into one of two categories: Either they can be resolved [tame], or they are perpetual [wicked], which means that they will be part of [the couples] lives forever.” Of the many problems presented to the psychologists, almost 30 percent were tame problems and so could be solved. The remaining 70 percent were “perpetual,” problems that could never be “solved” but only worked on again and again. “… [Perpetual] problems,” they wrote, “are inevitably part of a relationship, much the way that chronic physical ailments are inevitable as you get older. They are like a trick knee, a bad back, an irritable bowel, or tennis elbow.”

The most important problems that married couples struggled with were often nested problems consisting of “solvable” problems (tame) and perpetual problems (wicked) bundled together.

While important, this was not their only important finding. Gottman and his colleagues understood how difficult it is to tell people that some of their problems could not be solved, but could only be lived with. They worked to teach the couples how to deal with them. But the most serious obstacle they found was that the ones that could be solved – the solvable ones – seldom were! What was possible, and what could have been helpful in improving the relationship, was often ignored!

The psychologists were clear in their recommendations: The best strategy for working with nested problems in marriage as well as in other relationships, in teams, organizations and societies was to solve the solvable ones first!

Some possibilities:

– A short tempered boss who has a long history of blowing up over insignificant issues may not be able to gain complete control of his emotions, but he can start and end staff meetings on time.

– A husband may not be able to eradicate his feelings of frustration over the way his wife disciplines the children, but he can take a turn preparing dinner and then, afterward, do the dishes and clean up the kitchen.

– A supervisor at work may be uncomfortable with conflict and seek to avoid it at all cost, but she can learn to listen carefully and non-judgmentally to the concerns of others.

– A father may not be comfortable with his son’s choice of music and clothes, but he can show up at his soccer games.

– A VP for Finance in a large corporation may have difficulties not feeling resentful toward his new boss who is not only a woman, but in his opinion unqualified to be CEO, but he can make sure that his work is completed on time and with no mistakes.

-A new mother may be frightened by her feelings of resentment toward her new baby, but she can make sure the baby is fed when she is hungry, and bathed every day.

-A man suffering from Type I diabetes may not be able to cure his disease, but he can leave his house each morning at 6:00 am for a two-mile walk.

In summary, an important and necessary step for moving forward with nested problems is to define the tame problem, determine whether it can be solved without an excessive amount of collateral damage, and then solve it!

Step 3: Work with the Wicked

Once the solvable problem has been solved, and no disasters have been noticed, it is time to turn to the wicked part of the nested problem.

As I have said, while wicked problems cannot be solved, they can be managed. “We may not love these problems,” writes Gottman, but we can learn to “cope with them, avoid situations that worsen them, and to develop strategies and routines that help us deal with them.”

Here are some strategiesfor coping with wicked problems:

Strategy #1: Wicked Problem Talk:

Among the most important strategies for working with wicked problem is becoming a master of Wicked Problem Talk

While much of the work with tame problems is analytic in nature, (including observation, collecting data and organizing it in order to communicate it to others), wicked problems are first attacked with conversations, first with oneself, and then with others: “Can I figure out why this problems seems to be so important for me?” “How do I see the problem?” “How do others see the problem?” “Why is it important?” “Who is affected by it?” “What has been done with this before?” “By whom?” Central to the process is to be able to speak clearly and concisely, ask good questions, listen actively, express one’s opinions and preferences, seek a balance between advocacy and inquiry, agree, disagree, persuade, convince, and also be open to being persuaded and convinced by othrers. In short, wicked problem talk is Straight Talk consisting of the following

Meta Talk: Talk about how you are working on the problem;
Search Talk: Seek helpful and valid information;
Influence Talk: Seek to influence others toward one’s preference and point ofview; be willing to be influenced by others toward their point of view;
Self Talk: Saying what you see, hear, want, prefer, intend, and feel. An important part of Self Talk is an I-Message: Describing what you see, hear, prefer; sharing your cognitive and emotional responses to what has happened or is happening; listing carefully to the others’ perspective; and then jointly seeking a new direction.

Strategy #2: Find a Third Way:

In his foreword to Adam Kahene’s Solving Tough Problems, Peter Senge observes that Kahene’s great strength in working with tough problems was that between “a growing sense of powerlessness and an increasing reliance upon force” he was able to find a ‘third way:’ a transformation in our ability to talk, think, and act together. I am convinced,” adds Senge, “this is the only reliable path forward, not only for hierarchical leaders but for all of us – as parents, citizens, and people at all levels in organizations – seeking to contribute to meaningful change.” Finding a Third Way out of the dilemma of being trapped between opposite extremes is among the most important ways of working with wicked problems.

Problem situations are often defined as either Right vs Wrong, or Right vs. Right. For Right vs. Wrong problems there is a right solution amidst many wrong ones, a correct answer among many incorrect ones. Solving Right vs. Wrong problems is a relatively easy call (though often not practiced): Choose the right one. Right vs. Wrong problems are equivalent to tame problems.

Right vs. Right problems are almost always wicked problems and are much more complicated. Here is an example: A number of years ago, I sat in an executive staff meeting of a Fortune 500 company while the CEO brought everyone up to date on a decision they had taken several months earlier to close a major manufacturing facility in Dallas that resulted in the loss of over 2500 jobs. He emphasized once again that information could not be shared with others since all of the financial and personnel issues had not been resolved.

Later in the week, the CEO led a Town Meeting session with key managers designed to deal openly with questions and concerns. As the meeting drew to a close, a man stood in the back and asked, “There are rumors that the Dallas facility is going to be closed. Is it true? I am about to close on a house in Dallas and I need to know?”

This is an example of Right vs. Right problem: It is right to tell the truth, especially when asked a specific question, and it is right to hold back confidential information until it can be legally shared.

Here are some examples from How Good People Make Tough Decisions by Rushford Kidder:

“It is right to provide our children with the finest public schools possible – and right to prevent the constant upward ratcheting of state and local taxes;

“It is right to honor a woman’s right to make decisions affecting her body – and right to protect the lives of the unborn;”

“It is right to condemn the minister who has an affair with a parishioner – and right to extend mercy to him for the only real mistake he has ever made in his job;”

“It is right to ‘throw the book’ at good employees who made dumb decisions that endanger the firm – and right to have enough compassion to mitigate the punishment and give him or her another chance.”

Right vs. Right problems are among the most difficult of wicked problems.

Rather than choose one or the other side of the issue, the best way forward with Right Vs. Right problems, is to find a new way: a Third Way. For example, among the most contentious debates in our national conversation is a Right vs. Right issue: Should we move in our politics toward Freedom and away from Equality? Or increase Equality at the expense of Freedom? If natural forces are left free, then the strong and powerful will prosper and the weak will suffer. “Freedom for the wolf means death to the lambs,” was the way Abraham Lincoln put it. Or, in the interest of equality for all, should we curtail the freedoms of the powerful and give support to the weak?

In A Guide for the Perplexed, E. F. Schumacher uses the slogan of the French Revolution to illustrate what is meant by finding A Third Way. To the opposites of Liberte (freedom) and Egalite (equality) the revolutionaries added a higher-order value, Fraternite (brotherhood). When we see ourselves as brothers and sisters, we can find a third path between the two contradictory goals of freedom and equality.

A real-time example of finding a Third Way is a recent development with the problem of the wild horses and burros roaming the western lands of our country. In the last essay, I described how the ranchers wanted the wild horses removed from the range even if it meant killing them, while those who believed that wild horses were necessary in order for the West to be the West meant letting them roam free. It was right for the land to be used for the grazing of cattle, and it was right for wild horses to roam free.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), with responsibility for preserving the land and protecting the wild horses, was caught in the middle with no answer that satisfied both sides. Recently, however, a Third Way strategy seems to be emerging. First, the BLM will round up enough horses and offer them for adoption to reduce them to a number that will not damage the land, leaving some wild horses to roam freely. And second, those horses that continue to roam wild and free on the range will be vaccinated with a birth control drug. Will this be successful? No one seems to know. At least the impasse seems to be broken. The BLM is putting in place a Third Way alternative that seeks a way forward.

Strategy #3: Become a Scrum Master

Borrowed from the sport of rugby, a Wicked Problem Scrum is an organized and productive clash of opinions, preferences, ideas, beliefs, and convictions among a diverse group of individuals who are knowledgeable and interested about an issue or situation and are committed to seeing changes made. A Scrum is the most effective way of extracting problems from “messes.” With the help of a “scrum master,” small groups and teams move first to increase the confusion and controversy inherent in the”mess” by suggesting all the possibilities they can think of. Next they move to reduce the confusion by extracting from the mess an actionable problem. Then they make every effort to find the “best” solution or action plan they can come up with.

The requirements for an effective scrum are:

Diversity: Get the “right people on the bus” and the wrong people off – no simple or easy task in itself. The “right people” are those who are knowledgeable about the situation, who care about it enough to work with it, and who are willing and able to make a difference.

Divergent thinking followed by convergent thinking: A scrum begins by “letting a thousand flowers bloom,” and then pruning them back until the participants come up with their very best effort. Divergent and convergent thinking requires open and honest communication, creativity, constructive conflict, confrontation, collaboration, and ends with a consensual agreement for the best way to move forward. Managing these processes effectively requires great skill, patience, and flexibility.

A skilled and effective Scrum Master: The presence of a team leader who is skillful in beginning the process, keeping it on track, and bringing it to a successful end is essential. He or she is able to:

Create an environment where team members can take risks by expressing themselves openly;
Create and maintain helpful structures and supportive norms;
Encourage wide and full participation;
Value conflict and disagreements;
Support, even protect, people when things get tense;
Avoid losing focus or falling off the path;
Produce results – bring the team in on time and under budget!

Strategy #4: Create an Early Warning System

Working on both the tame and wicked parts of a nested problem is in fact a system problem: other parts of the larger problem situation will inevitably be affected and new problems are likely to emerge, often without any awareness by those who are working on the problem.

What is needed is an Early Warning System (EWS), a way of detecting new and unexpected problems that are taking shape before they gain traction or momentum. While working on a culture change project with a Fortune 500 company a number of years ago, I put in place a system of “informants,” – employees and managers from all parts of the country and at all levels in the organization. Each Monday morning I would call them for their report on what was happening in their part of the organization in response to the change initiatives. I would organize this information into a brief summary and then in the afternoon share it with the CEO and the VP for Organization Change. This EWS detected a number of surprise developments that allowed us to take action before things got out of hand.

John Gottman and Nan Silver, working with couples who were struggling with the marriage relationship, discovered the value of an EWS in providing information about problems that, while partially hidden, were putting the relationship at risk. “…every marriage,” they wrote, “ought to be equipped with a built-in early warning system that lets you know when your [marriage] is in danger of deteriorating. We call this system the Marital Poop Detector because it is a way of saying that something doesn’t smell right!” An effective Marital Poop Detector can help locate incipient problems while they are still minor, “before they build up steam and become combustible.”

A Bold Stroke and the Long March.

One part of any nested problem is most often a “rattler,” a tame problem that can be killed with one shot. Shooting a rattler is an example of what Rosabeth Kanter calls a Bold Stroke: A dramatic action that solves the problem. At a GE Workout session a young woman shared her problem: “I publish a plant newspaper each month and before I can publish it, GE policy requires that I get seven signatures. Can you explain why?” Her boss was dumbfounded. After a minute or two he drew his revolver out of his holster and shot the rattler: “That’s crazy, he said. “OK, from now on, no more signatures.”

In nested problems, however, there are also “pythons”- wicked problems – lurking within that cannot be dispatched with one shot. Pythons can only be managed with a Long March. A long march is what its name implies: a long-term slog through the swamp requiring effort, dedication, persistence, and patience. The marchers are not looking for a solution since there isn’t one, but for a new and temporary arrangement that will make things better, at least for a while.

Success with nested problems requires bold strokes and long marches!

Nested Problems? Solving and Grappling Required

“Good scientists, says Nobel Prize winner P. B. Medawar, “study the most important problems they think they can solve. It is, after all, their professional business to solve problems, not merely to grapple with them.” And yet, when scientists, engineers, and physicians, as well as others, decide to apply the solutions they have discovered in their research to real world problems – infectious diseases, education, public health, obesity, suicide, abuse of women and children, global warming, AIDS – they are often amazed to learn that what is now required is something more: They must become grapplers! They must learn to move beyond the relative simplicity of solving the problem and get into the middle of grappling with the new challenges of preaching, teaching, persuading, and convincing others, something they were never taught to do in their professional training.

Working with nested problems?

Guidelines to reflect upon:

1. Determine if what you have is in fact a nested problem.

2. If the answer is yes, then define carefully the tame part of the problem situation to determine what could happen if you move forward.

3. Solve the solvable problem.

4. Address the wicked problem part of the sitution by

Using wicked problem language;
Finding a Third Way;
Convening and leading a Scrum and using it to extract a “wicked problem” from the mess;
Working through the newly formulated problem to determine the “best” possible plan of action to be implemented.

5. Put in place an Early Warning System (EWS), an equivalent to Gottman’s “Poop Detector.”

6. Keep in mind that both Bold Strokes and Long Marches are required.