Commentary by Jack Hipple

Problem 1 vs. Problem 2

I recently attended a re-certification course in the Kirton KAI™ assessment tool. This is one of many psychological assessment tools designed to measure "style" in a person's behavior or approach to a situation. This one focuses specifically on an individual's problem solving style as opposed to social style (www.kaicentre.com for more information). Other assessments that you may be aware of include Myers Briggs, HBDI, Fyro B, etc. If your favorite isn't listed, no offense intended!

In the orientation to this class and in the accompanying literature a key concept was introduced. Not a new concept but a way of expressing it that I had not heard before and that's worth some thought on all our parts. The concept is Problem 1 vs. Problem 2. Let me explain.

We assemble a team of people together for any number of reasons. Sometimes it's as simple as to schedule a series of meetings or presentations, choose who we want to do certain assignments, etc. These tend to be pretty simple. But more frequently, there are some human relations aspects to the problems, some different styles of approaching a problem, different backgrounds and experiences, biases and prejudices, and any number of other issues. We still have Problem 1 (strategy, serious personnel assignments, organizational or technical problem), but now we also have Problem 2. Problem 2 is the way people analyze a situation, relate to each other, view a problem, or some other biological/psychologically hard wired aspect of how a situation or others are viewed.

We can measure these things but they are typically not changeable by an individual. Coping behavior can help, but some of the group's energy is now spent dealing with Problem 2 and less of the energy is spent dealing with Problem 1. You all know team situations where Problem 2 has become so large that Problem 1 dwarfs in comparison. In some rare situations, a Problem 2 may become so severe that people forget what Problem 1 was! Mergers and acquisitions sometime collapse because of this issue. We often don't take the time to use psychological profile information that team members have or to consider how useful it may be. What is the point of gathering the information if we don't use it?

I once worked with a company where all the Myers Briggs and KAI profile information was on a tent card as you walked into someone's office. You knew immediately, in a very personal way, who you were talking with and now they would approach problems, people, and situations. What would it be like to only have Problem 1? If all the group's energy was spent solving Problem 1 and not dealing with Problem 2? What would that be like? More productive? Would more useful ideas be produced? More serious discussion occur? More understanding of various opinions and why they were held? More use of diverse opinions and viewpoints? No wasted time dealing with hidden agendas and trying to guess where someone was coming from?

I suggest that, no matter what tools you use to analyze behavior and approaches, sharing this information openly and candidly will minimize Problem 2 and allow your team to concentrate on Problem 1. You might even be able to use this information in a pro-active way by utilizing the diversity in styles of behavior in a positive way.Get on with Problem 1 by understanding and dealing openly with Problem 2!

RSS