RealityCharting™, Root Cause Analysis Software

Consensus

The belief that the majority rules is so ingrained in our democratic belief system that consensus takes on the appearance of being a fundamental principle. While a very useful strategy, seeking consensus can be very detrimental. Most people are followers and want to be lead. Tell them a good story they can connect with and they will follow along. The consensus trap follows this logic: “I am not really sure what is going on, but the collective knowledge of the group certainly could not be wrong, so I will go along.” 

The more people who follow, the more the consensus effect grows. Good leaders know this and capitalize on this herd mentality. While we use consensus to make decisions, we need to understand that consensus is an agreement to take a risk together, nothing more. If we want to minimize the risk, we need to base the decision to agree on evidence-based causal relationships, not innuendo and storytelling. An effective solution occurs because we understand the causal relationships, not because the consensus voted on it. Always use an Apollo cause and effect chart in your decision process.

Back to Top

Groupthink

Groupthink is the condition of relinquishing our individuality for the perceived common good of the group. In fact, this perceived rightness by the group is a consensus that will doom the success of the group. Groupthink is often very subtle to the group unless they know what to look for. It is found in any group of people of any size working or playing together. It can be found in a married couple or an organized religion. It is a fundamental human condition and has proven very detrimental in our history.

The disaster at Pearl Harbor in 1944 was caused by the firm belief of Admiral Hummel and his small staff that the Japanese would never attack them. The strength of this group belief, called groupthink, was unreasonable to a fault. Even when the bombs started falling, they thought it was a drill and couldn’t understand who had authorized a drill on Sunday morning.
Groupthink is characterized by many symptoms:

• A belief that the group can do no wrong.
• A belief that the group has a higher authority than any individual inside or outside the group.
• Rationalization to justify a position established by the group, regardless of what other factors may be present.
• A strong sense of them and us.
• An atmosphere to conform. Anyone dissenting is ridiculed or put in a bad light to encourage conformity. Consensus holds the highest priority.
• Individual censorship based on the belief by individuals that they couldn’t possibly be as smart as the entire group.
• The belief in group unity. Without ever calling for a vote, it is assumed that everyone in the group agrees to the same position. Sometimes this occurs even when the position goes unstated. The need for unity is so strong, potential conflicts are avoided or denied.
• Individuals speaking for the whole group.

To prevent groupthink from getting started in your group or team, foster open discussion on any subject. Use a cause and effect chart to create a common reality based on evidence-based causes not storytelling or opinions of the strongest personality. Ask everyone to play devil’s advocate and ask an outsider to review your work, if possible. Honestly address their comments. Avoid sharing conclusions outside the group discussion.

If you recognize the symptoms of groupthink as listed above, do the following:

1. Share what symptom you sense with the group. Let everyone know you think the group is falling into the trap of groupthink. If you get people who disagree strongly with your observations, then you are probably engaging in groupthink.
2. Ask to be educated; play dumb with probing questions that bring a different perspective to the table.
3. Let team members know it is okay not to know, and then work on developing a plan to find answers.
4. Use the Apollo cause and effect chart as the basis for your common reality. Remember to use evidence and always go to your point of ignorance and find out if someone outside the group can answer your questions.
5. Encourage outside points of view and take action to bring them into the group discussion.
6. Challenge all statements that are made by an individual speaking for the group, such as, “I think we can all agree.”

Groupthink is a strong human trait and difficult to recognize because it feels so natural to belong to a winning team that we don’t want to upset the appearance of successful decisions.

Back to Top

Experts

Experts are essential to effective problem solving, but they should not be given any more credibility than the next person with evidence-based causes. By definition, the expert is a narrowly focused person who knows a great deal about his or her subject matter, but they do not know everything. Experts have a tendency to be right-minded. If they present themselves as opinionated and having the correct solution, beware. Everyone has to play by the same rules when using the Apollo cause and effect chart. If the expert provides a cause, they must also provide evidence. If they have none, do not get into an argument, but put a question mark below the cause and move on.

An engineer may be taught early on to respond to clients’ questions with the statement: “It is my engineering judgment that this is true.” This seems like a rather shallow response to technical questions, but it works.  What's amazing is how readily this is accepted by the client, and how many engineers believe it to be an acceptable practice. The non-engineer has no comeback for such a statement and is left to accept it. It is not a question of whether the statement is valid, it is a question of making the statement without any evidence to support it. The misuse of this term is not only found in the engineering profession but with many other experts from laborers to physicians.

Part of being human is wanting to speak authoritatively. If people let us get away with it, we use this strategy with great skill. When you encounter this strategy, avoid a contest of wills and the spewing of excrement from large barnyard animals and just ask for the evidence to put on your Apollo cause and effect chart. Often the opinion is based in fact, but the expert has not been challenged for so long they have forgotten. Ask for references, examples, or details of past experiences. Ask to be educated.

Back to Top

Parochial Mindset

Parochial mindset or provincial thinking is yet another human condition that limits effective problem solving.  It is a significant barrier to effective solutions because it drives us right to our favorite solutions. It is the common belief within a group that if no one in the group knows the answer to a question, then there is no answer to be had anywhere.

The next time you are working on a problem with others, step back and watch the discourse. As the questions and answers unfold, eventually a question will go unanswered. That is, someone will ask a question and the air is still with silence. After a short pause, because we don’t like dead air, someone will change the subject or ask a completely different question. At this point there occurs an unstated but conscious agreement by all players that there is no answer and any pursuit of one has no value. The cause chain is stopped and never followed up unless someone in the group understands and implements the rules of the Apollo process.

Always go outside your group for answers to the unanswered “why” questions. It is incredibly arrogant to think that you or your groups are the only ones on the face of the planet who know what’s going on. Even if you are working on a specialized problem within a specialized industry, there is usually someone else who may know about these causal relationships and be able to provide some insights. Go to your local university; they love to work on real-world events. Stopping too soon is a common reason for ineffective solutions.

Back to Top

Programmatic Barrier

Another cause of stopping too soon on a cause path is the programmatic barrier. This is similar to the parochial mindset but has different origins. When following a cause chain, the programmatic barrier occurs as we reach a point where the answer to the next “why” question will result in questioning some organizational program. This seems to be caused by the fear of discussing an institutionalized program. To attack an established program will require much effort and probably not yield any changes, so we stop. Sometimes the solutions associated with the last cause are general. For example, we may find that someone stopped at “people not adequately trained.” Knowing that the training program is inviolate may cause the team to offer a solution of retraining without regard for the causes of ineffective training. To break through this barrier, always go to your collective point of ignorance on every cause path.

Back to Top

Denial

Denial is the strongest human attribute we have and it is manifested in many ways. The need to maintain our own reality is sometimes stronger than the need to learn new cause and effect relationships. Sometimes perceptions intrude upon our “realities” and cause major conflicts.

This was notably displayed in responses to a National Geographic article on lions feeding at night. One letter to the editor read as follows:
“I found the photographs very unsettling. They captured the victim animals at their most private and vulnerable moments—those of terror and death. I am outraged at your assumption that I want to see these struggles.” This person openly stated their wish to deny their perception because it conflicted with their “reality.” Furthermore, they were “outraged” that someone else could see a different reality and want to share it. A different reality was presented in another letter to the editor regarding the same story. “My daughter, age four years nine months, looked over my shoulder as I was reading my August issue. She was so interested in the pictures of the lions that I had to read all the captions to her with minor deciphering of difficult words. She now understands that a night in the life of a lion is not exactly as it is for Simba in the movie, The Lion King.” This parent not only enjoyed the sight of her reality, but shared it with her child.

In yet another incredible display of denial and how opinions become fact the Chief of Public Health for the State of Kentucky enlightened an audience with this logic. “If tobacco sickness were real, we would know by now because we have been growing tobacco for over two hundred years.” He said this with the full knowledge that hospitals and other medical facilities treat hundreds of people each year for tobacco sickness. Tobacco sickness is a common problem with people who work cutting and storing tobacco plants. The freshly cut tobacco secretes nicotine, a highly toxic alkaloid that is absorbed through the skin. It causes fainting, weakness, and sometimes death. But, according to some people, dying from tobacco sickness is not really a problem because it has been happening for over two hundred years.
When you observe someone denying what is in front of them, ask them to provide sensory evidence. Barring this, ask them to explain the causal relationships that support their views. This will usually help them overcome the misconception, but don’t be surprised if they cannot offer an explanation. Denial is an incredibly strong aspect of the human condition and is often impossible to overcome.

Back to Top

Time As A Cause

Don’t use time as a cause. Listen closely to our excuses. The cause is often given as time. We hear examples of this logic in daily conversation:

• The reason my car looks so bad is because it is old.
• I couldn’t finish my project because I ran out of time.
• I was late to work because time got away from me.
• We would have won the game if only there was more time.

Things happen in time not because of time. The car does not look old because of time, nor is it worn out because of time. It is worn out because of use and the second law of thermodynamics—entropy, the natural law that dictates everything in the universe is trying to obtain it lowest energy state. There are many natural processes, such as friction and radiation that cause wear, and they happen in time not because of it.

Back to Top

The Storyteller

The storyteller will want to take you back to the scene of the problem and tell you all the people involved or give you a history lesson on why things are done the way they are. While this is often interesting and even informative, don’t let them take control of the process. Listen carefully to what they are saying, and the first time you hear the answer to your “why” question, write it down, stop the story regardless of where it is, and ask why this cause happened.

Repeat this interruption process until you have mined all their causes. This will do more to shorten your meeting time than anything else you can do. Usually these storytellers begin to see what you are doing and realize that you only want causes and evidence. Because you are making progress and writing down what they have told you, they do not get upset with all the interruptions. Typically, they know you are trying to facilitate the process and will follow your lead, provided you are respectful and cordial. As you progress, they begin to see a better picture than was in their own head.

Back to Top

The Analytic

The analytic is interested in “why” questions but is more interested in sharing the correct answer. Since they have typically analyzed the problem in great detail, their primary purpose is to make sure you understand the correctness of their ideas. More often than not, they have a very narrow perspective of the situation and have left out many other cause paths. They will even tell you why their perspective is the only possible one. Remind them of the infinite set of causes and interact with them just like you would the storyteller. Ask for a cause; as soon as you get it, interrupt them and ask “why” to that cause or that set of causes.

The analytics are more likely to become upset with you, so be patient with them. You don’t want to turn off the information supply. One method to deal with this is to write down every cause they give you. This validates their worth and they are more willing to let go. If they are really getting off track, ask them if you can let that cause path go for awhile and work on the other paths that may seem more productive.

Back to Top

The Non-Participant

The causes of nonparticipation can be numerous, but they often lie in the “don’t know nothing” category or the “don’t want to play this game” category. For those who honestly don’t know anything about the problem, ask them for insights they may have after you have a pretty good set of causes. The “dumb questions” are often the best. If they say they don’t understand it, ask them to tell you why. If the Apollo cause and effect chart doesn’t make sense to someone, it is missing something. Use these people as your sounding board and honestly listen to them and make sure you understand why they don’t see something. Also enlist their help in the solutions phase.

For the person who does not want to play, the cause could be fear of embarrassment or fear of implicating themselves or others. In either case, let them know there is no wrong answer. They can say anything that makes sense to them; and if it fits into the cause and effect chart, it will be incorporated. For those fearful of being blamed, let them know the purpose of this process is to find a solution that prevents recurrence, not to place blame or punish. Be careful not to give the assurance of no punishment unless you have that authority. Sometimes managers will usurp the investigator and your credibility is forever destroyed. This is often a tight balancing act because in about 1% of the situations, punishment may be the best solution. Try to identify the possibility of punishment before getting into the details of problem analysis. If it is possible, do not grant amnesty but continue to develop the cause and effect chart.

Back to Top

The Participant

The participant is eager to learn and understand what happened. This eagerness is sometimes slow in coming because of painful experiences in previous group problem solving, but it will come in time. The true participant is usually quick to pick up on the basic rules of this process and the importance of causes and evidence. They begin to realize the facilitator is more interested in “why,” and the “who” question is never asked. With a consistently honest approach in asking “why,” the participants gain confidence and open up as more causes are understood. When someone knows the answer to a sincerely asked question, it is hard for them not to share what they know. It is especially hard if they can see how much clearer the picture will be when they add their knowledge to the common reality being created. People fundamentally want to help others, but they must be assured they will not suffer the pain of embarrassment. This can be accomplished by letting everyone know there is no such thing as a right or wrong answer in this process; there are only causes and evidence.

Back to Top