Start Anywhere

When groups begin searching for paths around their latest obstacles, or when they begin discussing new opportunities, a common pattern that impedes initial progress is a meta-debate about where to begin. Advocates of the various options do mean well; they truly believe that the option they favor is the "best" place to begin. Some do turn out to be correct; many do not. How any of them could know what they claim to know at the very earliest stages of their explorations is often mysterious. But that's a topic for another time.

In my experience, it turns out that starting (almost) anywhere is more valuable than delaying the start to debate what might be the perfectly optimal starting approach. Groups usually start in the wrong direction, even if they first debate the choices extensively. These debates aren't entirely wasteful, because they do clarify somewhat the options available. Still, in many instances, groups can learn much — if not more — by choosing an option with far less deliberation. So I've become an advocate of starting anywhere and seeing what happens, except, of course, when safety or health is an issue, or when trial solutions are irrevocable. With those two exceptions, in many cases, starting anywhere is just about as good as starting anywhere else.

But the start-anywhere approach isn't a license to blunder. There are some conditions attached.

Change course when the need is clear

The start-anywhere approach is based on a love of learning. To learn, and to love learning, we must have permission to make mistakes, because learning is the act of acquiring new knowledge or a new skill. After we've learned something, we're able to think or act differently. And to do that entails acknowledging that the old way of thinking or acting might not fit in certain situations.

We need to feel When we adopt an experimental
attitude, we can start anywhere,
and change course if
the need becomes clearthat it's safe to change after we've learned something. Unless we feel safe to change, acknowledging errors is difficult. That difficulty can cause us to stay on a course long after the time when the need for a course change is clear. Experience with that particular trap probably accounts for much of our tendency to debate which course to take even when we lack enough knowledge to decide among the possible choices.

Acknowledge cost when cost is a factor

When we adopt an experimental attitude, we can start anywhere, and change course if the need becomes clear. But these experiments aren't free. If the cost of changing is high enough, our choices of experiments might be influenced more by cost than by their relevance to learning.

Balancing the need to learn against the cost of learning is acceptable if we know we're doing it. Too often, though, we debate this balance in terms of the goodness of the options, rather than their cost. Because we always do better at whatever we're doing when we we're doing it with intention, acknowledge the cost of experiments when cost is a factor.

Consider how trying a solution might alter the problem

When our trial solutions irrevocably change the problem in important ways, we must exercise caution in choosing our trials. In such situations, debate about where to start is worthwhile — it might even be essential.

As an example, consider choosing a tint for a tinted concrete driveway. We wouldn't tint the concrete and then pour the entire driveway to see whether we like the tint. We'd find a less permanent way to check the tint.

Still, debates about trial solutions can sometimes fail to address the central issue, which is that we must keep in mind how a trial solution might alter the problem. Some solutions might have more impact than others; some might make irrevocable changes that aren't relevant to our purpose. Focus the where-to-start debate on the issue of irrevocability, and use that issue to generate alternative options and sort through them.

Value the freedom to discard prototypes

Often, prototypes become the basis for the final product — probably too often. When we incorporate into the final product designs that we intended only for experimentation or demonstration or proof-of-concept purposes, we're at risk of letting our first efforts become our last. And that can be dangerous when the designs of elements of our first efforts were never intended to support the usage patterns or environment that the final product must support.

Our fear that our prototype designs will be used in this way can fuel the debates about where to start. When we can be certain that we have the freedom to discard prototypes, where we start becomes far less consequential. Insist on the freedom to discard prototypes.

An environment that supports the above four conditions enables problem solvers to focus on the problem, instead of the consequences of failed solution attempts. Some who are fortunate enough to work in such an environment have not always had such good fortune. They might bring with them perspectives from less supportive environments. Habits of thought can be difficult to change; be gentle with those who are still making the transition.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Critical Thinking at Work:

The Paradox of Confidence

Most of us interpret a confident manner as evidence of competence, and a hesitant manner as evidence of lesser ability. Recent research suggests that confidence and competence are inversely correlated. If so, our assessments of credibility and competence are thrown into question.

What Groupthink Isn't

The term groupthink is tossed around fairly liberally in conversation and on the Web. But it's astonishing how often it's misused and misunderstood. Here are some examples.

Barriers to Accepting Truth: II

When we work to resolve differences of opinion at work, we often depend on informing each other of what we believe to be real facts. At times, to our surprise, our debate partners reject these offerings as untrue, even when they're confirmed authoritatively. Why? And what can we do about it?

Choice-Supportive Bias

Choice-supportive bias is a cognitive bias that causes us to assess our past choices as more fitting than they actually were. The erroneous judgments it produces can be especially costly to organizations interested in improving decision processes.

Six More Insights About Workplace Bullying

Some of the lore about dealing with bullies at work isn't just wrong — it's harmful. It's harmful in the sense that applying it intensifies the bullying. Here are six insights that might help when devising strategies for dealing with bullies at work. Example: Letting yourself be bullied is not a thing.

See also Critical Thinking at Work and Critical Thinking at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming March 12: Embedded Technology Groups and the Dunning-Kruger Effect

Groups of technical specialists in fields that differ markedly from the main business of the enterprise that hosts them must sometimes deal with wrong-headed decisions made by people who think they know more about the technology than they actually do. Available here and by RSS on March 12.

And on March 19: On Lying by Omission

Of the many devious strategies of workplace politics, deception is among the most commonly used. And perhaps the most commonly used tactic of deception is lying. Since getting caught in a lie can be costly, people try to lie without lying. Available here and by RSS on March 19.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info