Can "parallel thinking" bring value to the crisis management decision-making process?
Patrick Trancu, CBCI
Crisis management advisor & evangelist. I help organizations prepare, navigate and recover from crisis. Curator & co-author ?Lo Stato in Crisi. Pandemia, caos e domande per il futuro? (2021). TEDx speaker.
“If at first you don’t succeed, goes the old saying, try, try again. Good advice, up to a point. But let me offer a modification: even when you do succeed, try, try again. Tempting as it is to declare victory and move on, in many endeavors there is much to be said for rethinking an apparently satisfactory formula”, writes Tim Harford in this article titled “Even when you do succeed, sometimes it pays to try again.?Rethinking a satisfactory formula can unlock new ideas”, published by the @FT Weekend Edition.?
The idea is simple: “asking for answers in parallel rather than answers in series. While the approach is unconventional in job interviews, it is common practice among designers”, writes Harford.
“With parallel thinking (a term coined by Edward de Bono) all parties are thinking in parallel, in the same direction. The direction itself can be changed in order to give a full scan of the situation. But at every moment each thinker is thinking in parallel with all the other thinkers”(1).
Could this approach bring benefits to the crisis management decision-making process? It is an interesting question to consider.
As we increasingly face the challenges posed by systemic crises, or “mega crises” as some call them, we have come to understand that complexity cannot be addressed by thinking in linear terms. Consequentially, it could be argued, that questions in series – an approach that works well in emergency situations – may not provide the breadth of creative solutions required to effectively manage systemic crises.
Moreover, the intrinsic complexity of systemic crises has taught us that they cannot be effectively managed by a single crisis management team. In the 21st?Century, we must rethink crisis management organizations designed in an era gone by and reflect in terms of “teams” rather than “team” and of diffused leadership rather than relying on a central leading figure. The need to establish “rapid reflection cells” (RRCs) capable of taking a step back from events, to “think” rather than “act”, has also been widely advocated over the past decade by leading crisis management thinker Patrick Lagadec (@plagadec). An approach adopted for example by the Danish Civil Protection Agency through its “Pandora Cell”.???
One of the central problems in addressing systemic crises in the 21st?Century has also been a “lack of imagination” as clearly identified in the 9/11 Report and as we recently experienced with the Covid19 pandemic.?
Hence, what we seem to be increasingly facing is both an organizational problem and one of creativity or “imagination”.
In this new context is there any value in borrowing ideas from designers to integrate the crisis management decision-making process with the concept of “parallel” answers? What benefits could this bring? How would it work?
领英推荐
Building on Tim Harford’s article we could imagine a few scenarios.?
In describing the designers’ approach Harford writes “They will often produce several distinct attempts to meet a given brief, rather than immediately focusing on what seems to be the best idea. In doing so, the designers force themselves to explore the full range of possibilities, to avoid the risk of committing too early to a concept that seems attractive, but which may eventually be a dead end.”?
Could crisis management teams, or RRCs, work for example in parallel on the same problem to identify distinct solutions?
Another approach could call for the Crisis Management Team or RRC to develop a response to the scenario. Then force it to forfeit the central assumption, basically “the idea at the heart of the plan”(2) and send them “back to the drawing board”, and then again. “Sooner or later”, writes Harford, “the ideas start pouring out”.?
The problem in crisis management of course is that we do not have the luxury of time. But we also know that personal or group biases play a critical role in making the wrong decisions. So taking more time to reflect and doing so in parallel may be an idea worth exploring.
2.????Bill Burnett and Dave Evans,?Designing Your Life, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2016.
Colonel, Head of Training CCC @swissarmedforces
2 年I am feeling inspired this evening and here are a few more thoughts. In a world where individuality is often rewarded, it can be difficult to encourage team members to think differently. However, diversity of thinking is essential to the success of any team. Thinking in parallel means considering more options and points of view, and is the key to increasing diversity in teams. On the other hand, in the context of the Swiss military process, parallel thinking is already present in the concept of 'course of action (thinking)'. This works, however, if the team also has the DNA of diversity. The problem is that many teams are composed of individuals who tend to think alike. This can lead to hasty or undifferentiated decisions, which can limit the team's potential. To overcome this problem, it is important to encourage all team members to express their opinions and think critically.
Colonel, Head of Training CCC @swissarmedforces
2 年Ciao Patrick Trancu, CBCI. Certainly a maxim in a crisis situation is to be able to take time to reflect and then act. The various concepts of 'parallel thinking', 'lateral thinking' and others are certainly elements to consider. This works, however, if the team also has the DNA of diversity.If there is diversity in a team, in a group of people, the opportunities for genuine and innovative course of actions will be greater than in teams where there is a monoculture. Even in the military process, I see no compulsion in tasking two or more teams in parallel to come up with solutions to a common problem. As we know, the concept of swarm intelligence increases the possibility of finding real solutions that are appropriate to the situation. On the other hand, time and available resources can be a limiting factor. Although it is necessary to be able to take time to reflect, we know that in some situations timing can make the difference between success and failure. In short, we welcome diversity, competition or the confrontation of ideas. However, we need a clear and simple process and a mastery of the time factor. Forse interessa anche a Mark Eigenheer, Michel Kenel ??, Thomas Gasser, Niklaus J?ger, Anton Doerig, B.A., CSM, F.ISRM
Conférencier Fr/En- Medecin ??.- Ex médecin du RAID - Médecine de Catastrophe- Enseignant chercheur ESSEC- expert APM - Dirigeant Hot Zone Rescue consulting.
2 年Patrick Trancu, CBCI ???? thank you for sharing good vision on decision making under crisis and complex situation. As we use to say with Patrick Lagadec In this very challenging world they won t be a perfect and safe plan. Only human and humble leader would avoid a desespereting blindness The truth comes from the ground
Business Resilience Specialist at InComm Payments | MBA in Corporate Crisis Management
2 年Hello Patrick Trancu, CBCI ????. Thank you so much for sharing this article with us. I have a question: When you say about teams working on the solution in parallel, you mean that each team should assess the ongoing situation independently and then decide together on what is the best solution to apply or this should be done within a multidisciplinary committee, where the different teams present their points of view and thus define the best answer?
Intentional Unconventionalist I Passionate Thought-Provoker I Frugal Human Dynamics Navigator I Author
2 年I really like the frame of parallel thinking in your article. Thanks Patrick Trancu, CBCI ????! I only work with systems approaches to crises, which naturally does make sequential approaches to crisis management less relevant. I wonder, however, if you refer to solving a singular issue or several? For me, the latter is the preferred way because that’s the most effective to address a crisis holistically and make use of the competencies and diversity in a team or an organization. The idea is to let different teams work on different part elements (sometimes the same) of the crisis simultaneously. It’s a similar idea of decentralizing crisis management to a certain degree with the final decision-making being still with the key stakeholders. To add a layer to your article: I strongly advocate for the separation of development of options and decision-making. I often notice that this is huge oversight that developing the solutions creates a strong ownership bias already during the ideation process. Letting go of that proves to be difficult for many leaders. I think the aspect of time gets too much attention. When an organization is used to certain type of working processes it can continue during a crisis without major disruptions.