An extremely underrated skill is the ability to be an effective problem-solving facilitator. Today I will talk about a mental model which can help in being one.
An effective facilitator goes beyond doing the basics (setting an agenda, getting right participants, identifying actionables). How can you become an effective problem-solving facilitator? Try this mental model.
The trick is to use the framing below to identify the source of the disagreement. There are 3 levels at which disagreement can occur:
- Level 1: Problem Statement or Objective level
- Level 2: Key Levers/Issues of the problem
- Level 3: Degree of influence of each lever/issue
In a typical scenario, arguments will cut across any of these three levels. If there is a disagreement at level 1 which is not addressed, there is bound to be disagreement at level 2. If you don't have agreement on level 3, it should be argued until it's settled. So awareness of these levels is extremely critical.
Example — A Product Launch Disagreement
Let's say there is a disagreement about a new product launch. People are throwing arguments about why it will succeed or why it will fail.
Level 1: Is everyone trying to solve the same problem? Are we bothered about success in a particular region or the whole country? Is it successful if we get new consumers only, or should it have repeat consumers? Is a single purchase success? If the customer stops using the product after a day, is it still success?
Level 2: Assume you are solving only for total sales value. Is everyone aligned on what are the critical levers for success — e.g. marketing, initial target customers, pricing, product nudges? Now assume discounts are a very important lever and only your sales leader vouches for this. None of the other members think this is a relevant lever. You are definitely going to have a deadlock to solve. But now you know where the issue is.
Level 3: If someone believes that pricing has the largest impact on sales while someone else believes that the choice of initial target customers will have the largest impact, then they will never agree on the probability of success. Such views are often not called out explicitly.
"By applying this mental model, you might be able to identify where the disagreement between the attendees is. Disagreements are not bad. If you understand why this is happening, you can bring out the hidden assumptions and biases in the open."
This clarity then helps unlock the deadlock and move ahead in the problem solving cycle.