Nutshell: Become a creative problem-solver — and make better decisions

Problems may be “opportunities in work clothes” according to US industrialist Henry Kaiser, but they still need solving – and that process is both an art and a science.

In 1838, Charles Darwin interrupted his scientific theorising to decide whether or not to marry his cousin Emma Wedgwood. We know this because he drafted a pros and cons list to help him, balancing positives (for example, gaining “an object to be beloved and played with – better than a dog anyhow”) against likely negatives such as “a terrible loss of time”.

Happily for evolution, Darwin eventually came down on the side of ‘yes’ – going on to have 10 children with Emma, seven of whom made it into adulthood.

The process of problem-solving

In its simplest sense, decision-making is the act of choosing between two or more options – and, in many cases, making a quick and instinctive decision as to what’s needed. Or perhaps, as the Eisenhower Matrix teaches us, we actually need to delegate the decision to someone else.

However, when (like Darwin) we’re making more complex and important decisions in our personal or professional lives, we benefit from taking a problem-solving approach and adopting a mindset that combines creative (divergent) thinking – where we generate a wide range of ideas – with critical (convergent) thinking, to analyse and whittle these down. Doing so ensures we map alternatives, identify the right options from which to choose, and are able to make informed decisions based on genuine insights.

While decision-making is a single action, effective problem-solving is a process, inviting us to work through a series of deliberate steps or stages, while also helping to unleash our creativity. It has its origins in centuries of the scientific method – the process scientists still use to test and hone new ideas and thinking – which consists of systematic observation, measurement, experiment and the formulation of hypotheses.

In this way, creative problem-solving helps us to interrogate problems properly, to generate and question ideas and options – and to really explore the best possible outcomes. It gives us the best possible chance of making the right call.

Divergent and convergent thinking

At the core of any complex decision-making process is the need to define clearly and accurately the problem we are aiming to solve. Investing the time to research, articulate and clarify what’s at stake can save much wasted effort later on. As the philosopher John Dewey noted: “A problem well stated is a problem half solved.”

It is also important to generate a multitude of creative ideas and solutions (through creative thinking), before reducing and refining these into a viable option (with critical thinking). Moving from ‘whether-or-not?’ decisions to ‘which-one?’ decisions can make all the difference to success according to Ohio State University management professor Paul Nutt – whose study of 358 decisions in medium-to-large organisations in the US and Canada found that half of the decisions made by organisations fail to achieve what they intended.

He traced the failures to managers who impose solutions, limit the search for alternatives and use power to implement their plans. He concluded that managers who make the need for action clear at the outset, set objectives, carry out an unrestricted search for solutions and get key people to participate are more likely to be successful.

We can learn these lessons and make better decisions by employing a careful balance of divergent and convergent thinking. While these are opposite cognitive approaches, using different parts of the brain, both are integral to a successful outcome in problem-solving.

In divergent thinking, we consider all the variables and come up with as many ideas and paths as possible in a spirit of spontaneity and creativity, deferring our judgement in order to explore our problem from a wide range of angles. We use each idea as a springboard for another, chasing quantity over quality.

By contrast, convergent thinking is logical and linear, focusing on narrowing and evaluating our options and honing them into workable solutions. This is a quicker way to arrive at an answer, but less likely to generate innovative ones.

The latter is more commonly used and understood in a business context, but divergent thinking can be stimulated by simple techniques such as:

• Brainstorming: Gathering with others to generate as many ideas as possible in a short period of time, and in an unstructured manner – without thinking too much about their validity or practical application.
  
  
• Brainwriting: Like brainstorming, but where each participant thinks and records their ideas individually and anonymously – and without any verbal interaction.
  
  
• Mind-mapping: A visual thinking tool that helps us to capture ideas and organise information into a hierarchy, displaying connections between elements. We start with a single topic (or problem) in the centre of our page and add branches to related ideas.

The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. They are often used sequentially in a problem-solving process to open up our range of options before we cut down our options and decide.

Involving others in problem-solving helps us to gain the most diverse range of ideas and to move past our own biases and other limiting factors. As economist Thomas Schelling points out: “One thing a person cannot do, no matter how rigorous his analysis or heroic his imagination, is to draw up a list of things that would never occur to him.”

At Pixar, for example, ‘Notes Days’ involve large numbers of employees from different areas of the business coming together and then breaking apart into groups to share their thoughts on various topics in order to solve particular problems. Managers are excluded from these gatherings, to ensure employees feel freer to offer candid feedback.

In one such session, over the course of a single day, 1,059 Pixar employees discussed 106 topics in 171 sessions managed by 138 facilitators in 66 meeting spaces across Pixar’s three buildings. The company immediately implemented four ideas, committed to five more, and earmarked another dozen or so for continued development.

Following a structured approach

Having explored multiple ideas through divergent thinking and then narrowed them down again with a convergent approach, we must, of course, make a plan. After this, we need to take action; even the most effective problem-solving process is for nothing if we fail to make our decision – putting it into practice and making adjustments as necessary along the way.

Guiding us to achieve all this in a structured way is the Osborn Parnes creative problem-solving model, developed in the 1950s by Alex Osborn – an American advertising executive, considered to be ‘the father of brainstorming’ – and psychologist Sidney Parnes. It sets out a six-stage process, as outlined below.

Objective (or mess) finding

The first stage of creative problem-solving requires us to get clear on why we’re doing what we’re doing. This preparatory step is about scrutinising our goals and objectives to ensure we know what our solution is going to solve – and why our actions will prove beneficial. Here, we should be thinking about what we need or want, considering the opportunities we would like to exploit and highlighting any challenges or obstacles that stand in the way of our desired outcome.

For example, if our goal is to increase creative innovation within our organisation (to grow and compete within our industry), we must be able to define what we mean by innovation, understand what this looks like in the context of our business, and contemplate how increasing it might bring direct and indirect benefits. Is a lack of innovation really what is hindering our growth and success? If so, what advantages could we build on, and where do we face particular challenges?

Fact finding

We cannot make an informed decision without gathering sufficient data to provide us with a full picture of the situation and the problem we are trying to solve. Stage two involves equipping ourselves with all the facts and figures we can unearth in order to understand our situation fully – and from all relevant angles.

For example, with our innovation goal, we would seek out data around past and present innovation performance and investigate the potential benefits of future innovation. Where in the company (and at what levels) do ideas tend to come from – and how are they received? What is the percentage of overall staff time spent on high-yield innovation activities? What amount of leadership time spent sponsoring and overseeing innovation activities? What is the potential value of innovation, how do we measure it – and in what ways are our competitors innovating?

Problem finding

At this point in the process, we need to get to the root of the problem, breaking it down and considering it from a range of perspectives. We must ensure we’re focusing on the right issue before we move on to generating solutions. Poor decision-making often comes from jumping in to look for solutions before we’ve properly defined the problem. 

The more curious we are, the more we ask “why?”, and the more we explore and break down causes and effects, the better the chance that we’ll set off in the right direction when it comes to looking at possible solutions.

For example, when tackling innovation, we might brainstorm to come up with a range of issues that could be contributing to our problem, such as:

• a lack of demographic diversity.
• poor psychological safety and low tolerance of failure.
• an emphasis on efficiency over creativity.
• a failure to encourage or role-model innovation.
• an emphasis on other skills when hiring and training.
• low staff morale and wellbeing.
• poor measurement of innovation – and little incentivisation.
  
  

Idea finding

Once we’re clearer about the problem/s we are trying to solve, we can employ divergent thinking to come up with as many different potential ways to address it as possible. Using “Yes, and…” statements will help to keep ideas flowing, allowing continuation and expansion.

We shouldn’t judge ‘crazy’ contributions or shut down odd or impractical ideas – the whole point is to encourage left-field thinking that may lead us to solutions we would never have contemplated. As Osborn explained: “It is easier to tame a wild idea than it is to push a closer-in one further out.”

For example, our brainstorm might go something like this: “We could set new KPIs that encourage and measure innovation. Yes, and we could provide training on how to boost creativity. Yes, and we could give people ring-fenced time for creative projects. Yes, and we could introduce a monthly prize for new ideas. Yes, and we could appoint a head of innovation and innovation champions. Yes, and we could embrace failure as a part of learning. Yes, and we could tackle culture to improve tolerance of failure, Yes, and we could appoint a head of failure…”

Solution finding

Moving into a convergent thinking phase – characterised by order and logic – we now need to make our ‘which one?’ decision, choosing the best option from the ideas generated in the idea-finding phase. This involves setting selection criteria for evaluating our choices (for example, risks, costs, achievability), considering every aspect of feasibility, and narrowing our list to a small list of viable options from which to select.

For example, from our idea finding around innovation, we might weigh up our options against our selection criteria, referring back to the problem-finding stage to ensure we are tackling the right issue. This could narrow down our list to setting innovation KPIs, ringfencing creative time and introducing a monthly innovation prize.

Acceptance (or action) finding

Our final step involves making a decision, settling on a solution and developing a plan of action in order to implement it. It’s time to make a judgement call and take the plunge, bearing in mind that few decisions are irreversible.

Decision-making is, in any case, an ongoing process which requires us to continue to take stock of evolving situations, monitor and evaluate progress and change tack where necessary. In our fast-paced world of business, situations can change, so we need to remain agile – open to flexing and altering course. 

In evaluating our decisions, we will also build our judgement and experience for making decisions in the future.

For example, having decided to pursue innovation KPIs, ring-fenced time for creativity, and a monthly prize, we will need to take action to implement these, researching resourcing and logistics, drawing up a timescale and involving relevant colleagues. We can take them through our decision-making process to explain how we’ve reached the conclusion we’ve come to. However, if (say), the monthly innovation prize doesn’t spark much interest with employees, we might instead prioritise appointing and developing innovation champions and investing in related training, taking a flexible approach based on new information we receive.

Art and science

No matter how thorough our process has been, we can never truly be sure we’ve made the best choice, but by adopting a structured problem-solving approach, we are giving ourselves the best possible chance of finding innovative solutions and pinpointing the right one.

Pros and cons lists have their place (and worked out satisfactorily for Darwin) – but truly successful decision-making relies on a clear definition of the problem to be solved, plus a careful balance between creative and critical thinking. It really is both an art and a science.

Test your understanding

• Describe the difference between divergent and convergent thinking – and how they both fit into the problem-solving process.

• Outline the six key stages of the Osborn Parnes creative problem-solving model.

What does it mean for you?

• Practise divergent thinking through brainstorming or mind-mapping a problem you face.

• Consider a recent complex decision you have been faced with and try going through the structured process to come to a decision.