A journey into solving a problem

This is the raw version of the article. To get the rich content, get to my Remanso space.

Σ decisions × entropy × chaos → future

We have little control over many things, but let's focus on what we can influence — and it starts with making a decision. How do you make decisions?

When a new problem appears, we can react differently:

The 3F
Flight
Fight
Freeze

These kinds of reactions push us toward the ultra-solution: the one that will solve the problem but destroy everything around it at the same time. This is a programmed failure. It's appealing in our minds but never applicable in reality.

The analysis part is paradoxical: it's the part we prefer, yet also the part we most overlook. This can be explained by the fact that we naturally default to surface-level reasoning. We can go deeper — drawing on our theories and experience — but that doesn't always happen.

For a while now, I've seen several resources discussing this:

Meadows writes about it in Thinking in Systems — and we'll see later how we're obsessed with behaviors while neglecting a systemic approach,
In his book The Field Guide To Understanding Human Errors, Sidney Dekker distinguishes the old view from the new view: the old view holds that "human errors are the causes of all our problems and must be controlled," while the new view holds that "human errors are the symptoms of multiple conflicting systems,"
Albert Moukheiber, a French-Lebanese neuroscientist and psychologist, explores environmental psychology — how a space shapes behavior: a classroom, for instance, is designed so that even the most extroverted people end up sitting quietly and listening to a professor.

Solving a problem is mainly about telling a different story. It's not about who does what — but about who is talking to whom.

The fundamental attribution error

The fundamental attribution error leads us to judge our own merit by our efforts, while judging others by the results of their actions. We explain our failures through external factors and others' failures through internal ones. When you force yourself to acknowledge that the situation would be the same no matter who was in it, you shift your focus to the system rather than the person. That is the first step.

We live in the illusion of knowledge.

Your analysis is mostly wrong

In Thinking in Systems, knowing all the consequences in a world where A influences B and B influences A is quite hard. We know little about the levers, and when we identify one, we often pull it the wrong way. So the goal is to make good assumptions and build good causal diagrams. A solid reasoning always starts with practicing genchi gembutsu — and from there, you begin to free your mind from the fundamental attribution error.

Can you spot the difference between surface reasoning and in-depth reasoning?

Two nearby symptoms suggest a link we feel compelled to counteract. This is surface reasoning.
We try to understand the dynamics behind those symptoms. This is already deeper reasoning.

There are no shortcuts — it takes theory and experience to identify the right dynamics.

Isolate the problem

Where is the normal distribution?
What are the factors behind this situation?
Which ones are most significant in this context?

Experience doesn't come from exclusive knowledge of unexpected situations. It comes from knowing a great deal about normal ones.

Let's see the counter-measure

How often are we fixated on the expected gain? We tend to have an idea of a better system — even before truly understanding the situation (see previous point). "The procedures are clear," I say. "It's obvious we need to follow this standard in a certain way." And yet, the problem persists.

This is the wrong approach, and one that has little chance of succeeding. Our desired outcome depends on the compounding effect of every change it requires. Try it: next time you find a problem and a proposed counter-measure, make your prediction. Talking it through with someone else is the best way to challenge the chain of thought.

Leading change

Leading change is always hard — just as it is to change your own way of thinking about a problem. We run into emotional blocks: why would they listen to me?

Do I have the proper aura already?
Is there a clear win for them?
How small is the change?

This requires support, as every solution creates winners and losers we need to reassure or compensate.

Conclusion

As being a good team leader,