Solvable? Sellable? Who knows?
The question came at me (and I suspect that it might have been rhetorical) in a conversation with a fellow consultant this week:
“How do you handle a situation where everybody has expertise and those expertises don’t mesh?” To illustrate the situation, my friend started quoting meeting attendees who immediately frame the problem in ways they understand: “Well, from an operational perspective, this is stretching our resources too thin…” or “From an inclusivity lens, we are being overly restrictive…”
Any conversation about collaboration has to include the substance of the discussion (factual or otherwise), as well as the power dynamics of those involved (directly and indirectly). The latter dynamics usually refer to trust, personal history and influence, but when dealing with complexity “expertise” creates its own dynamic.
Experts often play a starring role in the drama of problem solving (i.e. “How on a second. You are all ignoring the most important part of this!”). When the solution is knowable, expertise allows you to see the possible because you understand the constraints. If we were wiring an office space, we rely on the electrician to help us avoid shorts or worse. Clinicians help us manage risk. Lawyers help us stay onside with wording of contracts and agreements. We ignore such expertise at our peril. Not only is it a waste of time to discuss “the impossible,” but it also creates a real danger that those in power ignore REAL constraints… and then assign “the impossible” to some poor executive leader to deliver upon.
When, however, you bring a group together to discuss a complex issue, we lose the safety net of having an expert (or a leader) to provide definitive guidance. In setting the direction for an impact-focussed organization, there are no indisputable first principles for us to reference.
Too often, “Well that won’t work,” shuts down a conversation immediately. The expertise and experience behind such assertions is usually attached to an anecdotal incident (many years back) when something similar was tried and failed. Other times, if pressed, the fact that we have never tried becomes the key argument in discounting its utility. These immediate reactions as to the feasibility, wisdom and possibility of an idea can be a great jumping off point for a substantive discussion about current possibilities and options.
In discussing complex issues, such dialogue among “experts” should include:
Acknowledgement that the immediate dismissal is rooted in reason. (i.e. You are probably right.)
Curiosity with respect to the specific reason being employed (without dismissing what can’t be easily explained).
Invitation to suspend that reason, if only temporarily, to explore other ways of understanding it.
For example:
Resident Expert: “The [insert stakeholder name] would never support that!”
Complexity-friendly response: “You are probably right. What specifically would they find so objectionable?”
The conversation can then explore at least two avenues:
1 - Can we do what we want without creating objectionable conditions? (Can we SOLVE it?)
2 - Is there a way to make that condition less repugnant with enough people that we could pursue the path? (Can we SELL it?)
At some point, we have to make decisions under ambiguity and, in the spirit of accountability, all should be sufficiently comfortable to support the direction. Everyone loves the certainty that we are not making a mistake, but when this is not possible, our best bet is to ensure the conversations take what we know (collectively and individually), and accept the unknowable.
By definition, experts KNOW, but that shouldn’t get in the way of dealing with the complexity we face.