Read the case study below and identify exactly which of these problem solving blocks are exist in the case:

Blocks to problem solving and change A. Perceptual blocks 1. Stereotyping: we see what we expected to see 2. Difficulty in isolating the problems 3. 3 Tendency to delimit the problem area too closely: all too often we define problems very nar-rowly. 4. Inability to see the problems from various viewpoints: increasingly we talk of 'trained inca-pacity' 5. Saturation: data may come in large measures, or in large measures only occasionally, or in the presence of distracting data. 6. Failure to use all sensory inputs: we need all the data we can get, but do we utilize every-thing that is available to us?

B. Emotional blocks

1. Fear of taking a risk: the fear of making a mistake, to be seen to fail, is a common block 2. Incapacity to tolerate ambiguity: the solution of a complex problem is a messy process. 3. Preference for judging rather than generating ideas: judging ideas too early can lead to early rejection. 4. Inability to incubate: an unwillingness to 'sleep on the problem' often because there seem to be pressures for solutions

C. Environmental blocks

1. Lack of support: we have already seen that a non-supportive environment is not conducive to innovation, nor to creative problem solving. 2. Not accepting and incorporating criticism: but those with good ideas can create blocks too, by not being willing to accept criticism. 3. Bosses who know the answer: many managers are successful because they have ideas and can push them through.

D. Cognitive blocks:

1. Using the incorrect language: whether mathematical or professional (e.g. accounting, marketing, etc.) or visual. 2. Inflexible use of strategies: there are many strategies available. We often use them uncon-sciously, but not necessarily to best effect in problem solving, perhaps because of the vari-ous blocks we have already discussed. 3. Lack of the correct information: clearly a limiting factor. But again balance is needed. Information makes you an expert, which can mean that you think down the lines of that expertise - closing you off from creative solutions?

---- Case Study ----

CAC Consultants

The 'problem'

CAC Consultants is in the business of marketing highly sophisticated knowledge and professional skills, par-ticularly in the field of project management. The key to the firm's success lies in the professionals and the skills they develop and deploy. Attracting and keeping first-rate professionals is a key issue, and senior partners hold strong opinions on it. The company comprises a chairman and six senior partners (each responsible for a major area of business activity) and 14 junior part-ners, each reporting directly to either the chairman or a senior partner. In addition some 40 professional staff and 60 support staff are employed, all organized into teams within the major areas of activity. Some senior partners believed that career develop-ment was needed to attract high-quality young profes-sionals. Another group had serious doubts about this, believing that the firm could attract people of the right level of skill. In any event, these people believed that it

142 was impossible to appoint additional senior partners because of the impact of that on the income of the cur-rent partners. Finally, it was felt that career develop-ment would retain only the less able professionals; others would 'naturally move on'. Both groups of senior partners recognized prob-lems, however. For some the problem was how to attract and retain able young professionals. For others it was how to motivate effort and commitment from them in order to increase company income. The former saw the solution as lying in that of career development, the latter in the field of recruit-ment procedures. It was decided to hold a one-day meeting of senior partners to discuss the problem. Prior to the meeting there had been much discussion with individuals, often attributing various views or motives to others. People were seen as unfair, emo-tional, 'empire building', overreacting or overprotec-tive. At least one senior partner had been attributed as using career development as a means of rewarding a junior partner working for him.

The 'meeting'

At the meeting one senior partner proposed that regu-lar reviews of individuals be carried out and that the senior partners should agree a policy regarding career development and promotion, to both junior and senior partner level. It was argued that this was not a panacea but would allow for modest improvement in present practice. It would not undermine existing practices or lead to a fall in the technical competence of staff. More-over, it was proposed that the process be largely infor-mal and be designed so as not to threaten anyone. One response to these ideas was: 'I'm glad to hear that we intend to move slowly and build on present practices. The most important thing is to ensure that we recruit the right people and ensure that they perform well.' All agreed on the need to build up the firm's position. One pointed out that some of the junior partners were over-committing themselves in order to ensure promotion. Others felt that this would not matter 'if kept within reasonable limits'. One partner passionately put the point that the firm's growth and reputation would be harmed unless they could develop new services to allow them to meet rapidly changing needs. It was essential to attract people with ideas. Others responded: 'We don't seem to have any problems attracting people, and in any event we are highly profitable now. What's the problem?' When the meeting convened, several partners pro-posed that part of it be used to review the performance of the practice. Moreover, other commitments that people mentioned meant that it had to end at noon, rather than go on to late afternoon. The review of per-formance lasted until 11.20 a.m., allowing only a short discussion of the career development issue. There were constant interruptions as various senior partners were 'called to the telephone'. At the end the chairman summed up. Nothing would be done that was costly in terms of time and money. He proposed that a subcom-mittee of the partners be formed to develop ideas and a policy. One senior partner asked that the subcommit-tee's representation should include the range of views. This was agreed. The meeting ended with much com-ment about the progress made.

Background to the meeting Interviews afterwards identified the following points:

The senior partners concerned to see significant progress on the career development front felt they had to avoid anything which made other partners defensive. No mention would be made of the need to develop new ideas, services and business.

They also wished to avoid overstating their case because this would lead to the issue becoming personalized.

Overall it was felt important to keep the discussion on 'rational lines'.

Others clearly felt that the best approach to the meeting was to give those who wished to see career development 'their head': 'Let them talk so they cannot accuse us of having our heads in the sand'.

Thus it was that everyone appeared to rule out discussion of the validity of the views being put: 'If people are upset they become emotional and you cannot test their views'. 'After all, we must be rational.