Framing Problems (continued)

Last time we spoke about framing a problem, and this article is a continuation of some of those ideas.
1 - If you are ever on the side of an argument in which you are promoting a position favoring material things (wealth, land, money) you will likely be shut down if the other side starts presenting their perspective as one based on values (security, dignity, control of one’s own destiny, etc.). If the other side is framing the conflict as one that is based on values, you need to make your position about rights.
Example - It is nearly impossible to gain full support with a statement like “corporate profit is more important than the environment”, but you may find there is more room for agreement with a position that says that “a person has a right to earn a living, and that right must be balanced against any effects that might be felt in the environment”.

2 – In many businesses, there sometimes exists an unspoken rule that ANY conflict is unhealthy, or abnormal. The single most important rule in an interdependent society (like the functions that make up a business) is the rule that we will speak up when things don’t seem right, and will be answered with a thoughtfully prepared response. This is the basic give-and-take that allows for improvement in organizations. It is important to know how to frame the questions so they elicit the kind of thoughtful response to which I refer. To know more about this, search this site for articles on THE SCORE, my method for conducting one’s self in those kinds of discussions.

Scoping errors are closely related to framing errors. Scoping errors are errors regarding who should be involved, what they think, and the context of the discussion. Take time up front to consider and seek input from any parties that are likely to have salient input AND those that will be affected by the outcome. This effort starts with identifying all of the things at issue in the discussion and the understanding that, as new issues are discovered in the course of discussion, one must re-examine the parties involved to assure that the right ones are added based on the new issues.

Keep a careful watch to make sure that all viable options are kept open. It is human nature to “mentally exclude” options that are not best for themselves. In doing this, you may exclude options that may be almost as good for you AND enable a plan that works for all the other participants as well. Hold off on excluding options until near the end of the solution selection process.

More on that next time.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication