New Tool: The Path of Least Danger [Matt Schlegel]

In the previous blog, I described the step in the problem-solving process of how a team will analyze the various ideas proposed to solve a problem. During that analysis, the team logically thinks through the pros and cons of each idea. The team will also want to consider peoples’ emotional reactions to each idea, as that will impact the overall acceptance of a proposed solution. Having done that, the team has equipped itself to formulate a plan to move forward. In order for the plan to be accepted, the costs must be reasonable and the risks must be balanced. In my experience, I have found that after bringing a team of people through the problem-solving process to this point, there is a remarkable amount of consensus around the solutions to use in order to solve the problems the team faces. Building on that consensus, the team at this point in the process decides on a plan to move forward. This plan I like to call the Path of Least Danger.

Fear is a remarkable thing. Each of us has a different reaction to fear. I will stretch myself here with my lay knowledge of how the brain processes fear. There is a part of the brain, the amygdala, that serves as the information processor that outputs the fear response to the rest of the brain. As with much of our bi-cameral brain, the amygdala has a right part and a left part. My understanding is that one side tells our brain that something is really scary and that we should avoid it if at all possible. The other side tells the brain that you should go and destroy the thing that is making you feel this way. And, just like people can be "right-brained" and "left-brained" or "right-handed" or "left-handed", some people will have a strong reaction to fight and some will have a strong reaction to flee. (Please correct me if I have misrepresented the function of the brain, this is a blog after all.)

Since we are not quite to the point in our problem-solving process where we need to fight (I will talk about that more in the implementation phase), we can tap into the thoughts of the more "run-for-your-life" types, and I put myself in this category, to help the team formulate the path to move forward. Since the team has collectively decided already to do something, they now need a plan to get them to a solution that solves their problem. And, since all the scary pitfalls and landmines have been laid out in the analysis phase, and by this I am referring to the resources that the team would need to implement each idea and the threats that would prevent an idea from being implemented, then it is a matter of finding that optimal path that minimizes both resource utilization and threats to failure. On that path the team can build the reasonable-cost, risk-balanced plan. In other words, we can use our fear response to empower the team to choose the Path of Least Danger.

Now that the team has decided on a path forward, it is time to acquire the resources you will need to take the team down the selected path. In the next blog, we will talk about the important step of advocating the plan not only to get the permission to proceed, but to get the resources, as well.

__________________________
Matt Schlegel categorizes himself as a "fear aware" type. He taps into that characteristic as he finds that it gives him the ability to create project plans, schedules, test plans and manage quality for products. He finds that he is a "natural" at worst-case analysis, and uses that natural ability to help teams avoid pitfalls, create reliable solutions, and build high-quality products.