Imagine yourself dealing with the following situation: VanCleef Cosmetics has become one of the great business success stories of all time. Teetering on the brink of bankruptcy a mere three years ago, the company regained solid ground in one year, and since has pushed sales to $100 million.
VanCleef’s new CEO, Estee Rubinstein, pulled off this coup on the strength of a revolutionary new VanCleef product, “24K Glow” – high-priced, gold-infused liquid makeup designed to give the wearer the “look of elegant wealth.” “24K Glow” captured 38 per cent of the market.
That was until television’s hottest game-show personality, Vanna Gonn, awoke one morning to find her face splotched with green. The following day Gonn’s lawyer filed a $100 million suit against VanCleef, claiming the gold in her face makeup had reacted with her body chemistry and permanently dyed her skin, ruining her career.
As a problem solver brought in by VanCleef, what would you advise? Tell the National Inquirer that Vanna was abducted by extraterrestrials? Ignore Vanna, suggesting to the press that anyone who turns letters for a living is suspect?
Problems, problems, problems. We’re constantly bombarded by them. How do we deal with them? Unfortunately our natural tendency is to grab hold of the first thing that comes to mind and run with it. This is especially true if we feel less confidence in our judgment and decision making abilities.
The disadvantage of that approach is that our first thought is frequently a way we believe we can quickly dispose of the problem. It isn’t necessarily the best or even a good path. Good problem solving means generating many ideas and paths and selecting the best fit for the situation at hand.
But before we can generate ideas, we have to understand what the problem really is. We have to identify it, define it, and assess it. What is the core of the problem – that is, what makes it a problem? What factors are involved and must be addressed in reaching a solution? Who has responsibility for solving the problem? What resources are needed in order to solve it? We also have to commit ourselves to solving the problem.
Generating the list of alternatives is the most enjoyable part of the exercise because it allows us to let our imaginations run free. “What if this?” or “How about that?” It’s important that as we crank out these possible solutions we don’t judge them. Evaluation at this point, being told (by ourselves or others) “that’s a dumb idea” slows or stops the creative juices altogether.
It’s hard enough giving ourselves permission to be creative in the first place. There’s plenty of time for evaluating the alternative on its merits later. Now is the time to produce as many as possible to be evaluated.
Some of the criteria for judging alternatives include:
– Being concrete and specific
– Being observable and measurable
– Being achievable
– Having an acceptable risk level
– Having a likelihood of success
– Having a positive gut-level reaction.
Deciding on a solution isn’t as easy as it sounds. Many people don’t want to commit to a single course of action because doing so excludes the other alternatives. “Well, gee, maybe the other one is really better and once I decide I can’t go back.” This is a form of risk and many of us hate taking risks, no matter how small. Decision making is nothing if it’s not taking risks.
Decisions mean implementation and implementation means having a timeline in which to do it or procrastination may set in. Unfortunately, even as far as we’ve come, the process isn’t over yet.
Now we need to set it in motion and monitor what happens. Monitoring means actually observing, recording, measuring, and analyzing the outcomes of the decision action. Then it requires evaluating the problem’s solution over time to see if it really is working.
Using this problem solving process, how would YOU handle the Vanna Gonn situation if you were VanCleef’s PR person or lawyer?