Problems, probLEMS and PROBlems

 Introduction to Creative Problem Solving

 Life is full of them, isn’t it? Be it managerial, psychological, mathematical, chemical, physical or in the form of whatever word ending in “-al”, one has to face problems and come out with solutions. Mind you, finding the problem itself is not a child’s play in the first place, but, once found, a question remains if all problems need to be solved? What I intend to mean becomes clear when we consider that whenever faced with some problem, there are just three options. First, and the most preferred option, is to eliminate the problem forever from the root. Second acceptable choice is to conquer and change the situation to your favour. And if both fail, then accept it as-is and bear with it forever. In some cases, the third option does make sense and saves a lot of time, effort and deliberation if the problem is akin to a dog’s tail.

 Problem’s out there… How to solve?

 Having introduced ourselves to the problem and its nature, it can be categorized as either simple or complex. Likewise, the solutions to problems could also be simple or quite complex. If we imagine a 2 x 2 matrix of problems and solutions, then the part where complex solutions solve complex problems is the most elusive and specialized in terms of competence. Although such a combination does bring out the best, the solutions cater to a chosen few. What fun in that?

Simple Problem                              (I)                       And Simple Solution	Simple Problem                                     (II)                       And Complex Solution
Complex Problem                          (III)                                                       And Simple Solution	Complex Problem                                (IV)                                                      And Complex Solution

 A common phrase in everyday parlance is K.I.S.S intending to mean “Keep it Simple, Stupid!”! A popular notion or perception is that solutions to complex problems need to be complex, more on the lines of saying “More is better”. Yet, a commonly unrecognized fact remains that, on occasions, keeping things simple is the right way to go.

In my opinion, the mark of a genius lies in solving complex problems in a simple manner, with a deft trick of sorts. Solutions which are not understandable to the masses and cannot be reproduced are of little use, especially in a managerial sense. And, they are not very attractive, to say the least, are they? On the other hand, the subtlety and guile of a simple solution or trick captivates the audience and a single piece of a puzzle is sufficient to unravel the whole mystery. If that piece is found, you have conquered the whole thing! A simple example of a Rubik’s cube comes to mind. On the face of it, the cube presents a complex problem to be solved in terms of aligning coloured faces once scrambled. Since the scrambling is random, a host of problems can be devised. Yet, the knowledge of a generic algorithm does the trick and is enough to solve each and every problem. This is a basic tenet of Creative Problem Solving. The solution to the problem lies in a subtle step which makes the solution simple. Yet, when that step is known, the nature of the problem and the solution both get undermined. Perhaps this is the reason why the whole thing becomes trivial and the purpose or learning behind the whole process is lost. 

Creative Problem Solving

If you are thinking you have heard of problem solving before and from where this “Creative” popped in, then let me enlighten you with a fact that Creative Problem Solving basically entails creating solutions to problems from scratch rather than employ already deployed ones. A problem, simple or complex, can have multiple solutions. Each solution has a niche element associated with it and when an entrepreneur taps into a particular solution, an organization is born. The Khan Academy was born out of a problem of educating kids. Hasn’t this been solved before? Yet, why has the way Khan Academy has grown in terms of popularity the way it has? It is just that the entire process of pedagogy is made simpler and more interactive. A niche way to solve a known problem and there you go, the man is a hero today! Solutions to the problem of education have been found before yet none simpler than what Sal Khan thought of. The differentiating factor lies in the solution yet, in retrospect, couldn’t anyone have made a video at home to teach stuff and posted it in YouTube? 

Being simple is complex

Seems ironical, isn’t it? Why should being simple be difficult? Most of us have heard the phrase “Common sense is uncommon in common people”. It is a wonder as to why that should be true. One reason might be that our minds are trained and oriented towards convention, towards a notion that as problems get bigger, so do the solutions. We are essentially moving just between quadrants I and IV in the matrix and somewhere down the line we missed the existence of the other two quadrants. Of course, quadrant II is not fancied at all. But, quadrant III is where the fun lies! We all want fun to be part of our lives. So, how do we make ourselves fit in quadrant III? As they say, the first step towards solving a problem is to BEGIN. And, probably we are going wrong in the first step itself by not creating solutions but incorporating solutions learnt from someplace else. Perhaps, Edward de Bono can help us out with one of his videos here. Or perhaps what makes things complex is that we do not have an outlook, a goal to look forward to and direct our efforts towards achieving that goal. 

Creativity in Organizations 

The “Survival of the fittest” rule for organizations in the new age world can better be modified to be called survival of the cleverest, nippiest and the most innovative for organizations need to constantly innovate and come up with creative solutions to customer requirements posing as problems. Failure to do so can lead to obsolescence pretty soon. Not just create and innovate, an organization needs to take that step further and maintain its supremacy over time. Take the case of Motorola, for example, which invented the cell phone. Others have gone ahead and beyond with that technology now with Samsung leading from the front and Motorola has well and truly missed the bus.

And, no organization can learn to be creative in a day right? You either have that creative edge in your DNA, like Google or Apple, or hire creative people so that the organizational culture is transitioned over time. As organizations grow and prosper, problems are faced on a larger, more complex scale. And, if you have read till now, it should be aptly clear that the simpler the solution to a complex problem, the better it is!

Theory X and Theory Y managers 

Introduction

 Theory X and Theory Y was an idea devised by Douglas McGregor in his 1960 book “The Human Side of Enterprise”. It encapsulated a fundamental distinction between management styles and has formed the basis for much subsequent writing on the subject.

Theory X

 Theory X is an authoritarian style where the emphasis is on “productivity, on the concept of a fair day's work, on the evils of feather-bedding and restriction of output, on rewards for performance … [it] reflects an underlying belief that management must counteract an inherent human tendency to avoid work”. 

Theory X is the style that predominated in business after the mechanistic system of scientific management had swept everything before it in the first few decades of the 20th century.

 Theory X assumes that individuals are base, work-shy and constantly in need of a good prod. It always has a ready-made excuse for failure—the innate limitations of all human resources. Theory Y, however, assumes that individuals go to work of their own accord, because work is the only way in which they have a chance of satisfying their (high-level) need for achievement and self-respect. People will work without prodding; it has been their fate since Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden.

 In summary,

•   An average employee intrinsically does not like work and tries to escape it whenever possible.
•   Since the employee does not want to work, he must be persuaded, compelled, or warned with punishment so as to achieve organizational goals. A close supervision is required on part of managers. 
• The managers adopt a more dictatorial style.
•   Many employees rank job security on top, and they have little or no aspiration/ ambition. 
• Employees generally dislike responsibilities.
•   Employees resist change.
•   An average employee needs formal direction.

 Theory Y 

Theory Y is a participative style of management which “assumes that people will exercise self-direction and self-control in the achievement of organisational objectives to the degree that they are committed to those objectives”. It is management's main task in such a system to maximise that commitment. 

Theory Y gives management no easy excuses for failure. It challenges them “to innovate, to discover new ways of organising and directing human effort, even though we recognise that the perfect organisation, like the perfect vacuum, is practically out of reach”. McGregor urged companies to adopt Theory Y. Only it, he believed, could motivate human beings to the highest levels of achievement.

 Theory X merely satisfied their lower-level physical needs and could not hope to be as productive. “Man is a wanting animal,” wrote McGregor, “as soon as one of his needs is satisfied another appears in its place.”

 In summary, 

•  Employees can perceive their job as relaxing and normal. They exercise their physical and mental efforts in an inherent manner in their jobs. 
•  Employees may not require only threat, external control and coercion to work, but they can use self-direction and self-control if they are dedicated and sincere to achieve the organizational objectives.
•  If the job is rewarding and satisfying, then it will result in employees’ loyalty and commitment to organization.
•  An average employee can learn to admit and recognize the responsibility. In fact, he can even learn to obtain responsibility.
•  The employees have skills and capabilities. Their logical capabilities should be fully utilized. In other words, the creativity, resourcefulness and innovative potentiality of the employees can be utilized to solve organizational problems. 

Analysis

There are parallels with Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and Maslow was indeed greatly influenced by McGregor. So much so that he tried to introduce Theory Y into a Californian electronics business, but found that the idea in its extreme form did not work well. All individuals, he concluded, however independent and mature, need some form of structure around them and some direction from others.

 Maslow also criticised Theory Y for its “inhumanity” to the weak, and to those not capable of a high level of self-motivation. In his comic classic “Up the Organisation”, Robert Townsend wrote powerfully in support of Theory Y: "People don't hate work. It's as natural as rest or play. They don't have to be forced or threatened. If they commit themselves to mutual objectives, they'll drive themselves more effectively than you can drive them. But they'll commit themselves only to the extent they can see ways of satisfying their ego and development needs." 

Implications of Theory X and Theory Y in management

• Quite a few organizations use Theory X today. Theory X encourages use of tight control and supervision. It implies that employees are reluctant to organizational changes. Thus, it does not encourage innovation. 
•  Many organizations are using Theory Y techniques. Theory Y implies that the managers should create and encourage a work environment which provides opportunities to employees to take initiative and self-direction. Employees should be given opportunities to contribute to organizational well-being. Theory Y encourages decentralization of authority, teamwork and participative decision making in an organization. Theory Y searches and discovers the ways in which an employee can make significant contributions in an organization. It harmonizes and matches employees’ needs and aspirations with organizational needs and aspirations.

Success is steady progress towards one's goals....

There were two rival groups in the forest- Rabbit and Tortoise. Once they decided to participate in a competition. The winner will prove the superiority of 1 team over another. Each team chose a leader and decide to compete. Lion, the king of jungle decided that there will be a race from one corner of the jungle to another. Tortoise group became upset because they knew they move very slowly and rabbits move very fast.But they could not say no to the king and reluctantly decided to compete with rabbit.

Competition 1:

Tortoise and Rabbit both started together. Tortoise was having a very slow pace and rabbit was having a very high pace of moving towards the finish line. When almost half done with the race, rabbit became very hungry. He ate some radish on the way and felt drowsy. He thought that tortoise would be lacking far behind. He thought of taking rest and went for a nap. While he was sleeping tortoise who was consistent throughout kept on moving without break, crossed rabbit on the way and reached the finish line earlier than rabbit. So Tortoise slowly and steadily won the race.Rabbit team became very angry and dissatisfied. They told the king that it was not fair. They complained that tortoise took advantage of weak health of their leader. They lied that he had become sick during the race.King agreed and planned for another race. This time it will be a race in water. They have to cross a river.And any number of participants can participate as 1 single team.

Competition 2:
A large boat was hired by both teams. Rabbit team leader took 30 rabbit in his team which were 10 more than actually needed. Tortoise leader took 25 which were 5 more than the requirement. The course of race was very long. It would take almost a day to go and return back. Both teams started. In the beginning rabbit team took lead again. But Tortoise team had better knowledge of short cuts in water as they live in it. When the rabbit leader saw tortoise ship approaching he started pressurizing his team. He was a theory X manager. He started showing distrust in his team. He started shouting at all. Also since the food item the team was given was with respect to 20 people but he had 30 rabbit in his team. So food stock started depleting fast. He started laying off people. He though since he has excess members, it doesn't make any difference. But this had a wrong psychological effect in the minds of team worker. They thought they would be laid off any time  The insecurity reduced their efficiency. The leader forgot the importance of ‘Fayol’s
principle of Espirit de corpse’ which emphasised the importance of amicable relation between worker and manager. He did not plan which rabbit is best suited for rowing at front end and which rabbit is suited for rowing at rear end of the boat. He also did not give them required break and defied all working hours. Thus he failed again in job design and Scientific management. After some time due to misuse of his power and ruthless behaviour, some rabbit formed a union and told that they don’t want to work under him any more. Many more joined in. Rabbit could not tackle the union problem and the worker left the race. He was left alone and so he couldn't even complete the race.
On the other hand Tortoise team leader was Theory Y manager. He motivated them throughout the way.He carefully designed job as to who should row where. He had taken 5 extra so that those who become tired can go for job rotation with these 5 and do some light work like serving water and food to the team. He made sure that oar to row boat was of right weight and length and scientifically found 1 best method to do the job which was ergonomically sound. Naturally they won the race.Though Tortoise are slow worker but they proved once again that a good manager can make better utilization of available resources with his managerial skills and vice versa a bad manager can fail the entire organization even though the workers are very skilled and have high potential and competency.