Andrew Badham 2019-02-15 11:35:44
Any crime thriller or detective show enthusiast knows that there are two main kinds of detective: the methodical one who processes and puzzles over information, connecting dots and formulating opinions from there, and the insightful one who has the sudden moments of revelation. A classic example of the former is Sherlock Holmes: “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Holmes’ methods are exhaustive and focused. He exemplifies what you might call the analytical mind. The second kind of detective is instinctual, led by hunches and gut feel, and most often comes to his conclusions in an “Aha!” moment. You’ll most likely catch that moment at the point of his giving up. He might be drowning his frustration in beer when he says something like: “Of course! They used the beer kegs to smuggle out the drugs!” The second detective is also finding clues and information to come to his conclusion; he simply has a more dissociated, less focused approach.
It turns out this dichotomy in problem-solving is not just a trope of crime fiction; it seems most people are split along this cognitive divide. A recent study published in Neuropsychologia found key differences in the resting brain activity of different people, which predicted their approach to problem-solving. In other words, if these same scientists came and measured your brain wave activity while you were quietly relaxing, not even thinking about solving problems, they would be able to predict the way you would go about problem-solving.
"Analytic solvers exhibit greater frontal resting-state beta-band power. Insightful solvers exhibit more left parietal beta and left-temporal theta/alpha."
This doesn’t mean that analytical people can’t have these seemingly epiphanic moments of realisation, nor does it mean insightful folk can’t use structured methods. In fact, Dr Barbara Oakley recommends switching between what she calls “focused” and “diffuse” thinking. Focused thinking is that structured and intent analysis, whereas diffuse thinking is allowing your mind to wander and let things occur to you. So, we can all do both and we will all benefit from both. Perhaps this research indicates that some people might benefit from spending more time in one thought process than the other.
What this research can’t tell us is whether these predispositions to thinking were inherent or learned. Were the people who were more likely to structure their problem solving taught to do so, were they simply always inclined to that analysis, or is it a combination of both? This paper won’t give us that insight. What it will tell us is that not every person will function the same in a given problem-solving structure. So, what should teams do?
Taking a random sample of problem-solving teams, you might find any ratio of insightful to analytical thinkers. That means you have people with different strengths represented who might lead different stages of a problem-solving session. For example, if Gill is extremely analytical, we might ask her to lead the team through first breaking up the problem methodically and laying out the variables. Then we might turn to Sarah to see if she has any insights, any off-the-wall ideas, or hunches. This type of split is already seen in work by Edward De Bono and his Six Thinking Hats, where a blue hat is all process and procedure and a red hat is feeling and intuition.
Of course, most of us won’t have access to scans of our brains, at least not for the purposes of defining our problem-solving approaches. Nevertheless, we probably have our educated guesses as to which ones we might favour. We might also have our suspicions as to which ones our colleagues favour. So, go gather the team, discuss how you might fall into these categories, and get going on better solving your problems.