#34: Resource-Full

Introduction to Concept:

Often, we fail to find the solutions we need because we fail to use the resources we have. We wear blinders, it seems, that prevent us from using what is right in front of us or right inside of us. Or we impose imaginary limits upon ourselves and assume that we are not allowed to proceed in a particular fashion. In truth, though, there are fewer rules or impediments than we think there are.

A good example of how available resources aren’t always used to solve an important problem is this one involving a creative engineering class at M.I.T. The instructor had placed two ping-pong balls at the bottom of a metal cylinder, which was bolted to the floor of the science lab. The cylinder was about seven inches wide and about five feet high. The students had one full hour to remove the ping-pong balls from the cylinder. They could not leave the room but were free to use anything in the room. The professor encouraged them to work together, reminding them that if they found a solution, they would all pass the final exam and if they did not, they would all fail. They all failed. Had you been in that room, how would you have solved the problem? [Pause. Elicit solutions.]

Procedure:

1. The answer to the M.I.T. problem is “water,” which students could have taken from the faucets in order to float the balls to the top. After challenging the class with the M.I.T. problem, ask participants to solve this next problem. [Note: It is important to set up this problem by using a colored magic marker to draw the lines and a different color to draw the letters.]

In the following diagram, which letter does not belong?

2. Call on various participants to explain their answers and then give the correct one: The letter “t,” which most people don’t even “see,” is out of place because it is bigger, thicker, and of a different color than the other letters.

3. Psychologist Kurt Lewin devised a problem-solving tool that asks us to consider the current state of affairs and to juxtapose it with an ideal state of affairs. Having done that, we now consider what driving forces (indicated by a plus sign) will help us achieve the idealized state by using existing resources. Next, we think about the restraining forces (depicted by a minus sign) that may be preventing us from achieving the desired conditions.

4. Continue with this mini-lecture:

The Force Field Analysis is depicted as a large “T,” as you can see here. [Show diagram on flipchart.] It’s a valuable tool for analyzing a problem, ascertaining its causes, and evaluating the resources available for achieving the desired effect. An example of a problem that might be subject to such analysis is the illiteracy rate in America—1 out of 5 adults is functionally illiterate. That is the current status; ideally, there would be no such thing as illiteracy. The next step involves asking what forces could be used to bring us to the ideal state. Finally, we would consider what forces are causing the rate to be so high or keeping us from reaching the ideal. By reviewing the two columns, we can next decide the course of action that should be pursued.

5. Divide the class into small groups of four or five and give each team a sheet of chart paper. Have each group identify a problem at the top of the chart paper and report its current and ideal states. The problem could be one currently facing them as businesspeople or all of us as a society.

6. Give each group another group’s chart paper and ask members to list both the Driving and the Restraining forces for the problem listed.

7. After about 15 minutes, return the papers to the original groups and ask them to add further Driving and Restraining forces and then to select the one force (in either column) that—if they could direct their energies to it—they think could most effect the ideal solution.

8. Call on a spokesperson from each team to report on their selection.

Extending the Activity:

1. Have participants interview one another to learn what special talents/knowledge/abilities they have. Keep a classroom or corporate list of these resources and draw upon various individuals at various times for various projects.

2. Periodically do a brief force field analysis of issues raised by participants that relate to the subject matter of the course.

3. Begin the class with a large force field analysis addressing this issue: “How can we maximize the investment in training, after the training?” The current research is discouraging: Less than half of participants in training programs return to work and effect changes based on the new learning they have acquired. The ideal, of course, would be to have every participant put to use the new skills/concepts they acquired immediately after their return to the workplace.

4. Begin a collection of instances when slavish adherence to rules results in loss to an individual or organization. For example, after transferring to a new school in Seattle, a youngster asked his parents if he could go back to his old school. The reason for his request: The new school did not permit boys to work in the library. The no-boys rule meant considerable intellectual loss for the new school because… the fourth-grader who returned to View Ridge was none other than Bill Gates!

Workplace Connections:

1. If participants have not been asked by their supervisors, “What is the greatest contribution you can make to this organization?” encourage them to at least ask the question of coworkers or team members with whom they work.

2. We sometimes overlook available resources because we have not tapped the wealth of historical precedents. Suggest that participants study what has gone before in order to accomplish what is yet to be. In other words, what has been done in the past that might facilitate the solutions currently being sought or implemented?

Questions for Further Consideration:

1. What rules do you feel should be changed?

2. What do you think Tom Peters means when he says, “If you have gone a whole week without being disobedient, you are doing yourself and your organization a disservice?”

3. What resources—human and other—remain untapped in your organization?

4. Do you agree with author James Fixx, who asserts, “In solving puzzles, a self-assured attitude is half the battle?”

5. Kurt Lewin, originator of the Force Field Analysis method, has a model of change that calls for “Thawing,” “Changing,” and “Refreezing.” Assume you wanted to make some positive change in the workplace. How, what, where, when, and possibly who would you thaw, change, and refreeze?