The value of asking

Solving problems is of course very important, provided that there are real problems that need to be solved, but asking questions is not easy, and having an environment where you can ask questions is even more rare.

Problem solving is important, but?

"Give me the solution, don't just ask questions" and "The company pays you to solve the problem" are ideas that often appear in Chinese management.

However, in a salaried organization, the people who complain about the problems are usually the ones who actually see the problems, and they keep complaining because there is no easy way to fix them.

In such a situation, if you just focus on quickly solving the problem at hand and ignore the real problem being asked, can you predict what the organization will gradually lead to?

Solve the wrong problem efficiently

All the designed frameworks in the world are to analyze and restructure the problems that have occurred repeatedly, and then find a fixed process that can be executed repeatedly to deal with the same type of problems in the future.

For example, the design mode of software engineering is to assemble some common situations into mental methods, and even many softwares themselves are designed as frameworks, allowing engineers to fill in their own moves according to the rules,

The same is true of management methods. Skilled managers know how to use various methods and tools, and they will follow a set of standard procedures to improve the efficiency of themselves and the organization.

But not all problems can be easily solved by the framework, and each organization's problems are unique in different contexts. If the correct problem is solved, even without a framework, just using the most hackneyed methods can make the organization progress.

However, a supervisor who can only introduce management processes and management methods may not be able to apply these frameworks in the right direction when encountering various new problems. Head and foot pain is a pain in the foot, and even worse, I can't even relieve the pain, because I try to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

It's like solving high school math problems. There are always a lot of people who try to memorize a bunch of formulas and put them on when they see the types of questions that can be used; but I only memorize the necessary formulas. As long as I can deduce them, I will start from the problem itself Start derivation.

Perhaps for this reason, I have always been very repelled to use some "moves", but to use "feelings" to evaluate problems: Compared with a bunch of quantitative forms and rules and regulations, I pay more attention to those that are difficult to be quantified and presented. The problem.

But it is undeniable that just like memorizing formulas can be answered quickly, as a supervisor or senior employee, the advantage of having a bunch of tricks is that you can quickly achieve visible quantitative results without having to fully understand the problem. At this point, if the higher-up supervisors only see the numbers before they understand the real problem, they are likely to think the situation has improved.

Inconsistency of goals is not uncommon

Who defines whether a management hierarchy is successful? As far as the reality of the enterprise is concerned, only his upper level is qualified to define, in other words, as long as it can solve the boss's problems, it is qualified.

Any benefit-distribution-oriented organization will inevitably consider maximizing its own interests and externalizing costs as much as possible, such as environmental pollution costs, energy costs, labor costs, legal costs, and so on.

In the same way, everyone in the company usually maximizes their own interests locally, and then externalizes the cost: "As long as the problem of their immediate boss is solved, even if the company gets worse, it is still qualified." Considering the size of the company, factionalism and the grain warehouse effect, this is not an uncommon situation, and many people may have experienced it.

If there are two project choices, A is good for the company, but not good for themselves; while B may not be good for the company or even harmful to the company, but they have performance and promotion opportunities, I think most people will choose B.

The problems at the top are far more important than those at the bottom, and the problems of the immediate supervisor are also more important than the problems of the whole company. They are sometimes related, sometimes unrelated, and more often conflicting.

Face up to the importance of communication costs and team growth

The culture of "speaking out"

I once met a supervisor who felt that many trivial matters did not need to be reported, just do whatever you want, but afterward always found that what everyone did was different from what he thought. The "just do it" he said is often far from what I think in my mind. This is a relatively overestimation of people's communication ability and underestimation of the cost of communication.

I've found that different styles of management can lead to very different results.

While working in Taiwan, our team encourages everyone to share their thoughts and opinions. But after all, it is a team culture composed of Taiwanese people. Even if I think it is a very flat organization and the working atmosphere is very relaxed, usually only when there is a strong conflict of opinions, someone will take the initiative to express their opinions, and usually they can get advice. Or giving back is not easy anymore.

And now the company has members from dozens of countries, perhaps because of cultural differences and more challenging communication, the supervisors and team members here do more, and often say what they think of the possibility, even if it is a The idea that just came out of my head during the conversation, knowing that it may not be the best, is not afraid of being teased by others.

I found that in such an environment, the easier it is to share ideas, the easier it is to help the team, because the worst state is not a person being stupid, but a collective ignorance of thinking.

However, it is far more difficult than I think to speak out my thoughts and doubts. Although I know that the benefits of thinking alone are very low, as a "gifted student" under the passive education system, I want to work very hard. Squeezing out ideas and forcing yourself to be in sync with everyone on the team is still exhausting.

But after a while, I started to feel that it was all worth it.

Of course, the premise is that because the team has sufficient standards and communication skills, there will be no strong people who speak loudly and sing one-man shows, or who do not understand what they say, and the rest are absent-minded. To do this, we have to start from the time of selection.

Solving problems is urgent, and raising problems is long-term

Going back to the question at the beginning: Do you agree with the sentence "It's easy to ask questions, and the real talent is to give solutions"?

My thinking is that when faced with a difficult problem, finding the real problem is far more difficult than coming up with a solution: asking the wrong problem, solving it well, not only doesn't help, it might make things worse Bad; and asking the right question, even if it only partially solves it, is a big step forward.

If it is an enterprise organization, as long as it can solve the problem of its own boss, it is a talent. As for whether the problem itself is correct, I don’t think that many people care, because working in an enterprise is for self-interest. That's why so many people use the "solve the problem maker" trick because it effectively solves problems on the surface of the organization.

But it's not all bad to fix the surface problems, sometimes we just need to put out the fire, get the job done, and get a raise and a promotion. The point is whether the organization clearly realizes that the quick fix is just for contingency, and takes the core problem that really needs to be solved in mind and actually takes the time to solve it.

Stop quick thinking and see problems as motivation

"The Problem with Saying "Don't Bring Me Problems, Bring Me Solutions" is a good article, and the last straw that prompted me to write this draft that has been lying around for years.

If the leadership is accustomed to prioritizing the achievement of performance goals, ignoring and suppressing real problems, and often saying "give me the solution, and the rest will not be discussed", this behavior may reflect a fear of solving problems.

Avoid thinking about many difficult issues that are "not important at the moment". In the short term, it may help to focus on achieving goals, but in the long run, it will develop a culture of "no matter what you talk about it will not change", which will make the team lack creativity. What's more, Employees are discouraged from raising concerns, so risks that could have been avoided become unpredictable.

A healthier culture is that employees turn "complaining about problems" into "providing objective facts" to help management predict risks and promote long-term progress of the team; and management authorize solutions, lead growth, or help find resources to solve these problems based on employees' abilities. question.

As long as members are free to offer multiple perspectives and ask more questions, the more diverse the team sees things, the stronger the organization will be.

Thanks to the advancement of the Internet, many problems can now find ready-made solutions, and problems that cannot be solved by one person are usually solved by others within the organization. That's why I personally believe that problem solving is the basic requirement; that employees ask good questions and supervisors create an environment that encourages them to ask them.

Original link to Tokyo Stacked Towers