Our Organizing

Developing

Changing

(ODC 2.0)

Tool #5

PSL² PROBLEM SOLVING, LEARNING AND LEADING

Some history of this tool.

^{Professor Mark Sandberg of Rider University taught me the fundamentals of} PSL^{2 while I was his student in early 1970s.  I went on to write a book chapter in 1977}[i] ^{and reprinted it in Readings in Managerial Psychology (Leavitt, Pondy & Boje, 1980). I combine research on problem solving process leadership strategies that seem contingent on situational factors such as available time, hidden conflicts in the flock, and commitment needed (Belasco & Stayer, 1993). I developed the model to train buffalo herds to fly like geese (or camels to be horses). Since then} PSL² has been used by thousands of MBA students who took it into the corporate world. Every so often I run into consultants who built their practice on it. Now I update it for True Storytelling Institute as whole system change process tool.

PSL² is defined as, critical thinking and creative action in teams that manages both the content and process levels. To think critically means to understand the contingencies, when it is best to use critical thinking to build a few strategic alternatives and when it is best to use creativity and brainstorming. 

PSL² motto: “Follow the PSL² team process guidelines and you make a Goose out of a Buffalo.”  The team process phases are presented in Table One. First phase, is ID the problem. Groups fail because they skip process phase steps. Untrained groups engage in premature evaluation, before strategic or creative ideas get a chance to fly. And groups jump ahead of themselves, working on solutions before a problem has been ID-ed. The point is to know which process phase your team is working within, and not to allow any goose to be out of phase with the flock.

PSL² requires setup process-conditions and assumptions be met, in order to succeed:

1. People sit in a story-listening circle, not a pyramid or a square.
2. Inside the PSL² True Storytelling Circle, all geese are equal; all are process and phase leaders.
3. Everyone knows the process.
4. Everyone knows the group games that will get confronted with love and constructive critique.
5. Some problems and situations require Buffalo decisions, others can be decided by consensus or voting.

PSL² Guidelines

1. Process and Phases must be known to all and followed by all.
2. Solving without Saving is a waste of time.
3. Learn to Lead with all the PSL² process leader roles.

Train ensemble leaders to use all members of the organization as leaders. Everyone together, learning and leading is collective networking intelligence. Appoint one goose to be the process leader, and everyone to call games when they see them. This can be done in a gentle, caring and loving manner.

The process leader gets agreement from the flock on a one-sentence definition of the underlying problem. 

Confronting Single Loop Games – Game analysis is a useful way to spot dysfunctionally behaving people and dysfunctional group and intergroup process behaviors. Single Loop command-and-control is not the only way to develop well-functioning groups, and inter-group relationships, across then whole organization.

We use ‘ensemble leadership’ (everyone a leader). It takes a combination of directive and supportive styles of facilitation in the group to confront more severe games. 

Confronting with love, patience, and persistence is a skill that takes lots of consulting practice.  It also takes training to know when you can confront. Timing is everything (Principle 4 of True Storytelling). When you confront a game before the flock is aware a goose is playing a game, then you risk being seen as the villain who is being insensitive to the game-playing goose. The flock will eat such a leader. Confronting too autocratically or too soon, will divide the flock and your consulting role is over. 

There are more severe political organization-games than the ones listed in Table Two. Examples: Let’s you and him fight, and ‘Now I’ve got you you SOB’, may take some time outs with one on one sessions. Please note, that games in Table Two can happen in any phase, but are predicted to pop up, as they are listed. 

Look at Table One and follow the steps to insure the flock is working on a root-cause problem, and not a symptom (See SEAM site for Root Cause Analysis examples).  

PSL² Problem Solving Phases (See Table One)

1. Problem Identification (Problem ID)
2. Solution Generation
3. Evaluation of solution-potential, once we have a great list of option
4. Decision of which project to implement next
5. Implementation (go to #1 and keep cycling through)

What is Collective Networking Intelligence?

This is a SPIRAL TOOL for Collective Intelligence

Budgie Parrots Swarm, and make micro-second decisions of collective intelligence to avoid predators, dividing the flock, overwhelming the predator with maneuvers.

Collective Networking Problem Solving Intelligence is NOT A LINEAR PROCESS. But somehow for collective intelligence networking tow work out for humankind, some process to address some games people play (Eric Berne): nay-sayers, game players with hidden agendas, Phrog Farms throughout Tamara-Land, and group think processes that all must be deal with to get from ODC 1.0 to ODC 2.0. When you get to Phase V, restart the process spiral. We will get to what to do with all the game playing that goes on all through the PSL² Problem Solving Phases Learn & Lead process.

TABLE ONE: PSL² Problem Phases, Solve & Save, & Learn & Lead (adapted Boje, 1980)[i]

Phase I – PROBLEM ID – To ID a problem is to explore the problem, first, to write it out in a single sentence, and insure every team member understands the problem. There are eight critical thinking questions to ask. Three first three happen in Phase One, Problem ID. In Problem ID, the first question is asked: 

• Q1: “Is problem appropriate for Geese action?”  Many untrained teams try to solve problems that are Buffalo business. In phase one, there is a second question, 
• Q2: “Is it a problem or a symptom?” Untrained geese get lost trying to resolve symptoms, instead of finding the underlying root causal problem (See SEAM site). 
• Q3 “Can problem be decomposed?” Decomposing allows the team to work on one sub-problem, take it through all five phases, then come back and work on the next chunk.  

Phase II – SOLUTION GENERATION – There are three critical thinking questions for flying geese in Phase II. 

• Q4 “Is creativity or accuracy more relevant?”  Teams get stuck in a rut, using the same solution generation process over and over without looking at the situation.  Some solutions require accuracy (generate three alternatives, even split into sub-groups to work them out and come back and share). Other solution lists are creativity problems and the brainstorming guidelines apply.

BRAINSTORMING PROCESS GUIDELINES

1. Criticism is ruled out. Adverse judgment of ideas must be withheld until later (Later here refers to the evaluation phase: Confront any evaluative, skeptical, negativity in brainstorming phase).  

2. Freewheeling is welcomed. The wilder the idea, the better; it is easier to tame down than to think up.  

3. Quantity is wanted. The greater the number of ideas, the greater likelihood of winning solutions.  

4. Combination and improvement sought. In addition to contributing ideas of their own, geese should suggest how ideas of other geese can be turned into better ideas, or how two or more ideas (on list) can be joined into still another idea.

• Q5: “Should team work together (as Geese) or as individuals?”  Untrained teams allow a few squawking gooses to use up all the air time. There is no sharing of ideas and solutions by the flock, and the result is a poor quality discussion, weak alternatives, and no commitment. When air time is being respected then fine, work together. Research shows that individuals working alone to generate ideas, then combining them round robin generates more and better solutions. If you must work as a flock, then decide how to lead this process.
• Q6: “Is Directive or Supportive process leadership needed?”  Working as a flock, the geese sometimes need a lead goose who is supportive and other times the lead goose must be directive. 
  • A supportive style of leading means to move out of the lead goose role, and fly with the flock. Use active listening skills and use silence to solicit more alternatives. Throw your ideas up on the list along with everyone else’s. 
  • For a directive style, limit evaluative comments from the flock. remind them of the rule, “save evaluation for the evaluation phase.” Keep control of the wall pad or flip chart to work up the list with the flock. Manage the tempo (e.g. in brainstorming get as many ideas up on the chart as quickly as possible). Confront people who get into “hard sell” or “lend me your ear” games. Managing air time means being a directive lead goose.

Phase III – EVALUATION – There are two steps in the evaluation phase.  You promised to allow the flock to get critical, real, and skeptical. Keep your promise here.

• STEP 1 – “List Main Solution Strategies and Clarify each one for understanding.” If you have done the accuracy method in Phase II, then you only have two or three options that were carefully thought out. Discuss them for clarity.  If you come to Phase III from an enthusiastic brainstorming session, you may have a hundred ideas.  Take time to sort them into types, collapse similar ones together. However, postpone the the selling and pros and cons till step 2. In accuracy and creative method you can lead the flock to greater heights by keeping a good record of the solutions. 
• STEP 2 – “Discuss (and list) pros & cons for each strategy.” List on the flip chart.  Write each solution option down, and under it write “+” and list each plus. Then write “-” and list each con. 
• In both steps you will need to confront “Love me, love my dog” and “Groupthink” games.  

Phase IV – DECISION – Train the flock to be flexible in its flight patterns and use different decision processes for various situation contingencies (consider time, energy, conflict history, coalitions, and risk).

• Q7: “Which Decision Option” – When is it best to have the Buffalo decide, do a consensus process, just rank order (or vote) to make a decision, or recognize a “Turkey” (symptom) and start over again in Phase I.
  • Buffalo Decides when:
    1. Task is trivial to interest of the flock or Buffalo has an obvious preference.
    2. The authority to make the decision rests outside the group; when flock has vested interest.
    3. Issue is highly emotional and talking it out will only divide the flock.
    4. Flock does not have requisite knowledge or background to decide or act.
  • Consensus by Flock when:
    1. It is a complex task with high rate of information to exchange and a critical discussion of the issues is needed. 
    2. A simplistic vote will only disguise conflicts and disagreements it is now time to resolve.
    3. Flock members need to take responsibility and support the implementation decisions.
    4. A high-quality discussion and decision needed to copy with possible risky consequences.
  • Rank Order or Voting when:
    1. Issue where tension and disagreement is likely to so divide the flock that pushing for consensus is dysfunctional; where obtaining a group sanction is preferable to a Buffalo-only decision.
    2. There is no available time to allow for the arguments and conflict to be fully developed and resolved (there is price to pay for haste: flock will use next decision to act out any unresolved conflicts). 

Phase V – IMPLEMENTATION – Implementation planning involves the flock in developing an action plan for the chosen alternative.  Responsibilities get assigned to group members, schedules are made, and resources to get the job done are inventoried and requested.  In short, don’t leave the meeting with out an action plan and a list of which goose is going to do what when. 

• Q8: “Will if Fly?”  – Before you leave the meeting, reality check the solution, process, and action plan. 
  • If it still flies then try a process such as “moment by moment virtual reality prediction test” (See footnote[iii]). This is where you lead the flock through a theatrical exercise. Imagine each scene and act out the implementation of the solution.  Act out who does what, the resources you will use, time you will take, and what it will look like when if flies.
  • If you can not pass a reality check, then go back to Problem ID phase One. No harm done in finding out you were working on the symptom of some hidden problem.  It will save you money, time, and energy in the long run.

PSL² Process Leader Roles

1. Supportive – Keep discussion free and open; Sit back or take role of goose in the team
2. Directive – Control and focus the content discussion; Be the lead goose for content.  If you are vested in the content, you may want to let some other goose lead the process.
3. Recorder – Until you know what you are doing, do not delegate this role. The recorder is the one who is controlling the process on the flip chart, but this is no secretarial role.  Every PSL² team process has a recorder; someone who writes out the problem statement on flip chart, lists each and every idea (Saving Ideas is important), lists any pros and cons, lists all solutions, and list implementation action plans and notes who will do what when. 
4. Game Playing Conflict and Confrontation – This is every goose’s role in the team, but the lead goose, the one with the pen in hand, ends up doing much of the confronting, especially in untrained flocks.

Leading the problem solving phases, and knowing what phase your flock is in, is only part of the leadership task. The other issue is confronting games that groups and individuals act out in the flock meetings.  Eric Berne defines a game as “an ongoing series of complementary ulterior transactions progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome” (p. 48). As a transaction leader, a group process leader (or facilitator) needs to be able to confront recurring games. Flocks get into scripts, like repeated scenes in a movie.  The same scene gets acted out over and over, until the game gets confronted, and the issue resolved.  Process leaders manage the content, problem solving phases, and the conflict management levels.  It helps when all the geese are trained and know how to spot the games.  Table Two lists games and what to do about them in the phase the seem to happen most often. 

TABLE TWO: Games Flocks Play and What to Do

PHASE	GAMES	WHAT TO DO
I. PROBLEM ID GAMES	Hidden AgendaWhy don’t we do it my way?Ain’t it awful?	All flock members can confront these games.A hidden agenda or self-authorized (do it my way) agenda needs direct confrontation. Ask goose if they are trying to get at something else?; Ask someone selling their idea to wait till evaluation phase.For Ain’t it awful, acknowledge the negative aspects of the situation, then focus on what can be done.
II. SOLUTION GAMES	Hard SellLend me your earWhy don’t you, yes butAll talk and no listeningHave we been here before?	A hard sell or lend me your ear lecture will stifle the flock. Tell them selling can wait till evaluation phase. A direct confrontation is to summarize the lecture in six words, write it on the pad, and if the person keeps lecturing, get the flock’s agreement that your paraphrase has capture the point. A why don’t you, yes but game. Flocks stuck in their ways, use this game to stall, delay and prevent the process from unfolding. A gentle confrontation is “can we save this to the evaluation phase.”All talk is a common game. Try the talking stick. Everyone can speak, but only one a time, when they hold the talking stick.Have we been here before – this is why you are leading the flock, to keep them from flying over the same ground. Record comments on a flip chart and let flock know what phase they are in.
III. EVALUATION GAMES	Love me, love my dogGroupthink	Love me, love my dog is a game where ego gets tangled with the idea. Tell them about poker; once money in the pot, it belongs to the house.Groupthink is a word invented by Irving Janis to indicate when an in-group does not engage in realistic appraisal of options, and worse when everyone hates the options but is not saying anything. Devil’s advocate role playing is needed.
IV. DECISION GAMES	Let’s get this over withWe all agree, right?	Rushing a group process because of personal agenda or railroading a decision will just blow up in the next phase. Try to slow the flock down.
V. IMPLEMENTATION GAMES	Avoid the monkeyBuilding lead balloons	Ever left the room after a meeting after a decision, then nothing happened.  Avoid the monkey and lead balloons are two games to confront.  Nothing beats action plans and responsibility charts for these games.

Confronting Games – Game analysis is a useful way to spot dysfunctional people and group process behaviors. It takes a combination of directive and supportive styles in the group to confront more severe games.  Confronting with patience is a skill that takes lots of practice.  It also takes training to know when you can confront. Timing is everything. When you confront a game before the flock is aware a goose is playing a game, then you risk being seen as the villain who is being insensitive to the game-playing goose. Confronting too autocratically or too soon, will divide the flock and your leader role is over.  There are more severe games than the ones listed in Table Two. Let’s you and him fight, and Now I’ve got you you SOB. may take some time outs with one on one sessions. Please note, that games in Table Two can happen in any phase, but are predicted to pop up, as they are listed. 

References

Belasco, James A. & Stayer, Ralph C. (1993) Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring to excellence, learning to let employees lead. NY: Warner Books, Inc.

Berne, E. (1964) Games People Play. NY: Grove Press.

Boje, D. M. (1980) “Making a Horse Out of a Camel: A Contingency Model for Managing the Problem Solving Process in Groups.” In H. Leavitt, L. Pondy & D. Boje (Eds), Readings in Managerial Psychology. IL: University of Chicago Press, 445-470.

Boje, D. M. (1977) “Making a horse out of a camel.” In Boje, Brass & Pondy (Eds) (1977) Managing II, Chapter 8, pp. 220-241,2nd Edition.

Boje, D. M. (1980) “Making a Horse Out of a Camel: A Contingency Model for Managing the Problem Solving Process in Groups.” In H. Leavitt, L. Pondy & D. Boje (Eds), Readings in Managerial Psychology. IL: University of Chicago Press, 445-470.

Boje, D. M. & Murningham, J.K., (1982) “Group Confidence Pressures in Interactive Decisions,” Management Science, 28, 10, pp. 1187-1196, Oct. This is a research study contrasting Nominal Group, Delphi, and Laissez faire group processes on accuracy problems. 

ENDNOTES:

---

[i] Adapted from Boje, D. M. (1980) “Making a Horse Out of a Camel: A Contingency Model for Managing the Problem Solving Process in Groups.” In H. Leavitt, L. Pondy & D. Boje (Eds), Readings in Managerial Psychology. IL: University of Chicago Press, 445-470. Reprinted from (1977) Boje, Brass & Pondy (Eds) Managing II, Chapter 8, pp. 220-241,2nd Edition. Now renamed ‘Making A Goose Out of a Buffalo.’

---

[ii] BRAINSTORMING RULES

1. Criticism is ruled out. Adverse judgment of ideas must be withheld until later (Later here refers to the evaluation phase: Confront any evaluative, skeptical, negativity in brainstorming phase).

  2. Freewheeling is welcomed. The wilder the idea, the better; it is easier to tame down than to think up.

  3. Quantity is wanted. The greater the number of ideas, the greater likelihood of winning solutions.

  4. Combination and improvement sought. In addition to contributing ideas of their own, geese should suggest how ideas of other geese can be turned into better ideas, or how two or more ideas (on list) can be joined into still another idea.

---

[iii] Moment By Moment Virtual Reality Prediction Test � This is part of Grace Ann Rosile�s �creative problem solving� advice; Story the implementation with a scenario.  Imagine each implementation action plan step and who is doing what. It is a virtual space where you simulate and predict the situation, contingencies, and outcomes.

Contact Us

• WordPress
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Instagram