[UP 029] - 4 shifts to being a creative problem solver

Hello hello,

Hope you’ve been well.

Here we are once again. Your weekly dose of UP. Edition #029

Let’s have a look at this week’s menu:

🤔 Conventional vs Integrative Thinking: Drawing from one of my fave books I read this year, we'll explore the contrasts between Conventional and Integrative Thinking. We’ll discover how embracing complexity can lead to more innovative solutions.

🔍 Scientific Scrutiny: Ever felt that ‘this doesn’t sound right’ feeling when reading a scientific study? We'll break down how to judge their credibility using the FIRST acronym. We’ll look at how to tell fact from fiction.

🗣️ Clever v Useful Stories: From another of my reading faves, we’ll delve into the art of mastering our stories during challenging discussions. We’ll learn to craft useful stories that foster understanding rather than ‘clever’ conflict-creating ones.

Ready?

Conventional vs Integrative Thinking

I’m starting to look back at some of the great books I’ve read this year and one of them was the HBR book on critical thinking. So many great ideas in a small book. One of the (many) concepts I earmarked to share with you was the difference between Conventional and Integrative Thinking.

Kinda like comparing a black-and-white photo to a vibrant, multi-colored painting.

Both have their merits, but one offers a richer, more nuanced perspective.

Anyway, let’s take a look at the four steps that good leaders work through when problem-solving and how the approaches differ between conventional and integrative thinkers.

1) Determine Salience
Conventional Thinker: Focuses on the most obvious factors, preferring a cleaner, simpler problem to solve.

Example: When faced with declining sales, they might only consider external market conditions.

Integrative Thinker: Embraces complexity, considering a broader range of factors.

Example: They'd look at market conditions, internal team dynamics, product quality, and even global economic trends.

2) Analyzing Causality
Conventional Thinker: Believes in straightforward cause-and-effect relationships.

Example: "If we lower prices, we'll sell more units."

Integrative Thinker: Understands that relationships can be multi-directional and non-linear.

Example: Recognizes that lowering prices might increase sales, but could also devalue the brand or affect profit margins.

3) Envisioning the Decision Architecture
Conventional Thinker: Breaks problems into parts, tackling them one by one.

Example: Addresses a company's financial health by first cutting costs, then looking at sales.

Integrative Thinker: Sees the problem holistically, understanding how each part interacts.

Example: Considers how cost-cutting might impact product quality, employee morale, and long-term growth.

4) Achieving Resolution
Conventional Thinker: Settles for the best available option, often seeing decisions as binary.

Example: Chooses between raising prices or cutting costs.

Integrative Thinker: Seeks innovative solutions that resolve the tension between opposing ideas.

Example: Might introduce a premium product line to appeal to a different market segment, preserving brand value while increasing revenue.

The beauty of integrative thinking is its refusal to accept the world as a series of either/or choices.

Instead of asking, "What else could we have done?" they think, "What more can we do?" They're not just satisfied with the status quo; they're driven to shape a better future, even if the options are less obvious.

In essence, while the conventional thinker navigates the world using a well-worn map, the integrative thinker is out there, charting new territories.

And if you’re reading this so far thinking, ‘Damn, I’m more of a conventional thinker than I thought.’ That’s fine, you’re not alone.

The thing to remember is we can all cultivate this mindset.

It starts by developing the habit of challenging our first round of thinking.

To hold and explore opposing ideas, and by refusing to settle for easy answers.

Try it in low-stakes problems you face to develop the muscle of integrative thinking until you can unconsciously run it as your default mode of thinking.

This is what I’m doing right now anyway.

Let’s move on to a little look at how studies can be sneaky.

Scientific Scrutiny

I was sipping my morning coffee the other day, browsing through my news feed, when I stumbled upon a headline that claimed, "Drinking 5 cups of coffee a day reduces the risk of heart disease by 50%!"

As tempting as it was to take another sip smugly, my inner skeptic kicked in.

How often have we been swayed by such headlines, only to find out later that the study was flawed or biased?

Enter the acronym FIRST.

It's a handy tool I came across this week during my Noom course lessons and it’ll help us judge the validity and reliability of scientific studies.

Let's break it down:

F - Funding
Who funded the study?
Good: Independent organizations or institutions with no vested interest in the results.
Bad: Companies that stand to profit from positive outcomes. Imagine a coffee company funding a study on the benefits of coffee.

I - Investigation
How was the study conducted?
Good: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that minimize biases and confounding variables.
Bad: Anecdotal evidence or case studies that don't provide a comprehensive view.

R - Results
Were the results statistically significant?
Good: Results that are consistent, replicable, and show a clear cause-effect relationship.
Bad: Inconsistent findings or results that can be attributed to chance.

S - Subjects
Who participated in the study?
Good: A diverse and large sample size that's representative of the general population.
Bad: A small, homogenous group that doesn't capture the variability of the larger population.

T - Time
How long was the study conducted?
Good: Longitudinal studies that track changes over an extended period.
Bad: Short-term studies that don't account for long-term effects or variations.

In a world overflowing with information, it's crucial for us as consumers to be well-versed in the tools that are used to sway us.

It’s all good where the evidence is clear and well-founded but there’s a lot of times when the evidence is manipulated.

So the next time you come across a sensational scientific claim, remember FIRST.

It might just save you from that extra cup of coffee (or not, if you're like me).

Let’s move on from studies now to stories to round up this week.

Useful not Clever Stories

Navigating difficult conversations is a part of life.

With work colleagues, family or partners no matter what it can be something akin to walking through a minefield.

One wrong step, and everything blows up.

And at times with no path of return.

One of the best books I came across this year that dealt with this subject, was easily “Crucial Conversations".

One key idea was the idea of mastering our internal narratives, and therefore understanding ones used by others.

We often craft stories in our minds during these difficult conversations without our conscious design, and unfortunately, they're not always accurate or helpful.

The authors call these stories ‘clever’ and they come in a set of three.

Clever Stories We Tell Ourselves:

1. Victim Stories: "I'm the innocent sufferer in this situation."

2. Villain Stories: "It's all their fault. They're the bad guy here."

3. Helpless Stories: "There's nothing I can do. My hands are tied."

These stories, while they might provide temporary comfort, often distort reality and prevent us from addressing the core issues.

So, how do we shift from these clever stories to more useful narratives?

Crafting Useful Stories:

1. From Victims to Actors: Instead of seeing ourselves as passive victims, we should ask, "What am I pretending not to notice about my role in the problem?" This shifts the focus from blame to responsibility.
   

2. From Villains to Humans: Rather than demonizing the other person, ponder, "Why would a reasonable, rational, and decent person do what this person is doing?" This promotes empathy and understanding.
   

3. From Helpless to Able: Instead of feeling trapped, consider, "What do I really want? For me? For others? For the relationship?" and then, "What should I do right now to move toward what I really want?" This empowers us to take proactive steps.

In essence, the stories we tell ourselves shape our reactions.

By mastering our narratives, we can approach difficult conversations with clarity, empathy, and purpose, ensuring that we're part of the solution, not the problem.

***

That’s it for this week.

Thanks for reading as always, hugely appreciate it.

If you wanna support, all you gotta do is forward this email a buddy’s way.

And if you’re that buddy, welcome along. You can subscribe here.

I’m gonna go and use some integrative thinking to think through my stories.

See you next week.

Always Forward,
Utkarsh