IF THERE’S A PROBLEM, THERE’S AN INADEQUATE UNDERSTANDING

If there is any book that comes the closest to a book on managerial problem-solving, it has to be The New Rational Manager by Charles Kepner and Benjamin Tregoe. It has been quoted hundreds, if not thousands, of times and referred to constantly as a great book on problem-solving. And it is, if we are talking about external difficulties and concerns—which are the expressions of a real problem, and not a real problem.

This was the book that John Grinder and Michael McMaster quoted repeatedly in their NLP book, Precision: A New Approach to Communication (1993). From the Kepner-Tregoe’s models on problem analysis, the NLP co-founder created his definition of a problem as “the gap between present state and desired state.” Kepner-Tregoe had defined a problem as “a deviation between expected and actual performance.” There is “an expected level of performance which is not being achieved.” Of course, the problem here is that a problem is superficially defined. It is defined in terms of external factors—a deviation in performance. And while that is undesirable, it is a symptom, not the actual problem.

It was from Kepner-Tregoe that Grinder quoted, “a problem clearly stated is already half solved. It is also true that a problem cannot be efficiently solved unless it is precisely described...” (1965, p. 73). Yet what the authors originally meant referred to the external ‘problem,’ not a real internal problem. The Rational Manager was developed in the late 1950s and written in 1965. The first revision was in 1981—the version McMaster and Grinder used. [A third edition was published in 2006.]

Now the problem with all of the managerial problems described in the book is that all of the ‘problems’ are actually not real problems, only some conditions, concerns, or difficulties that exist in the external world. If I had not delved into the structure of a true problem, and modeled it, I would not have caught this. Yet once you know that every true problem lies in some person’s mind—you then know that it will show up in external conditions and situations. You will then be able to distinguish the two—problem and condition.

Does that mean that Kepner-Tregoe never got to personal human problems? No, in fact, they did. Yet in the end of their analysis, every ‘problem’ they considered dealt with external factors —the environment, allocation of resources, renumeration, etc. Amazingly, however, they did acknowledge that what truly gives manager’s some real headaches are the deeper more personal and psychological problems. They quoted one manager, “What really gives me trouble are people problems.” (p. 193). Why? Because people don’t do what’s expected of them! And with every so-called ‘problem,’ what the authors did was search for the ‘cause.’ And they actually wrote this, “Cause nearly always points to the work environment, not to the person.” (194). They couldn’t have been more wrong.

Well if “the person” is never at the cause of some challenge, concern, difficulty, then all solutions are exclusively about “Making adjustments in someone’s job and work environment ... often the best and only way to help that person become more productive.” That essentially banishes any thought that a person’s thinking could possibly play a role in the existence of a problem. The authors went so far as to write, “These techniques help us to understand cause-and-effect relationships.” (196). For them even human problems are caused by external factors and forces just as the case with mechanical problems. And with that paradigm, no wonder they title the next section: Trying to answer “Why did it happen?” (197). Ah yes, the why question which NLP banish having learned to banish it from Fritz Perls back in the 1960s. With the Meta-Model we learn to not ask ‘why,’ but to as how. How does a person create or experience this?

When they examined a problem with Bob who was “bored out of his mind, entering data on the workstation all day long” (201) they figured it was entirely the environment. It had nothing to do with Bob himself, his meta-programs, his way of thinking, his preferences, values, beliefs, etc. So because “Bob didn’t feel much enthusiasm for it ... because Bob’s heart just wasn’t in it,” they redesigned his job and everything was fine (pp. 202-3).

Here’s another problem-solving process, one that has been used by managers and organizations for decades. And while it does work is finding out how a piece of equipment has stopped functioning, or how the set-up for an assembling line may create problems, or how to find out what’s gone wrong with the chemistry of something, a transportation system, etc., it does not work at all when you work with people.

And even with external ‘problems,’ behind every problem there is always thinking—and inadequate thinking at that. Behind every difficulty or condition or experience is the way someone, or many people, are thinking. That’s because to do anything requires that you have the knowledge about how it works, understand how it works, are able to implement what you know into what you do, etc. Human knowing, thinking, understanding, thinking, believing, etc. is always involved in every problem and every solution.

Bottom line: Even external ‘problems’ involve thinking. All events experienced on the outside can only be solved by a ‘course of action’ which is informed by correct thinking. Yes, sometimes we might accidently stumble upon an action or process that solves a problem. Yet if we don’t understand what it is in the process that works, the likelihood is that we won’t be able to learn from that accident. In problem solving, thinking reigns supreme as the source.