Of the many ways of thinking about problem-solving methods, the linear/non-linear model, as widely understood, is perhaps the most linear. Linear thinkers are said to use thought processes dominated by logic and evidence. They follow a step-by-step progression in which the problem solver uses evidence and reason to move logically from starting point to solution. For example, linear approaches to complex problems often use analysis and synthesis. They decompose the larger problem into pieces, find solutions to the pieces, and then recombine the solutions, claiming (or, at least, hoping) that the combination of solutions to the pieces is a solution to the combination of the pieces. Linear thinkers seek basic facts, assumptions, or drivers, and a small set of laws that then predict whole-system behavior.
Non-linear thinkers are more likely to accept that complex problems aren't susceptible to analysis and synthesis. They're more likely to try to understand the whole, working from multiple starting points. They collect and sort through known patterns, connections, and insights. Then they apply them to find new patterns, connections, and insights. They recognize that the system might not be reducible to a few core elements governed by a few simple rules. Non-linear thinkers are more likely to accept — and seek — explanations for how the system itself drives the system.
But widely accepted explanations of non-linear thinking take different views of non-linear thinking. In these explanations, non-linear thinkers are said to search for solutions by striking out in various directions, sometimes selected at random or by whim, from multiple starting points. Then, so it is said, they apply logic and evidence to expand from wherever they are to wherever they can go.
A difficulty inherent in this model Some models of non-linear
thinking describe it as
essentially piecewise linearof non-linear thinking is that it is essentially piecewise linear. It models non-linear thinking as a sequence of linear forays into the unknown, from randomly chosen starting points, without necessarily applying to the next part of the exploration any of the knowledge gained from parts previously explored.
When we ask non-linear thinkers how they found the problem solution they just presented, they might not have a "logical" explanation, especially if they found their solution by other than logical means. Often, the absence of a logical, evidence-based discovery story causes some to doubt or even reject the non-linear thinker's results. This is what I call linear thinking bias. After a number of such experiences with linear thinking bias, some non-linear thinkers learn to retroactively invent linear discovery stories, sprinkled with appropriate amounts of evidence and logic, to explain to others how they discovered their results.
When this happens, the truth of their discovery method remains hidden. So, too, does a larger truth: we are all, to varying degrees, non-linear thinkers. Don't ask me how I figured that out. Top Next Issue
Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenNdzkFzZEzjcsserVner@ChacMOagksDOABauzoWPoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
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.
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.
More articles on Problem Solving and Creativity:
- New Ideas: Generation
- When groups work together to solve problems, they employ three processes repeatedly: they generate ideas,
they judge those ideas, and they experiment with those ideas. We first examine idea generation.
- How to Foresee the Foreseeable: Focus on the Question
- When group decisions go awry, we sometimes feel that the failure could have been foreseen. Often, the
cause of the failure was foreseen, but because the seer was a dissenter within the group, the issue
was set aside. Improving how groups deal with dissent can enhance decision quality.
- Wishful Significance: II
- When we're beset by seemingly unresolvable problems, we sometimes conclude that "wishful thinking"
was the cause. Wishful thinking can result from errors in assessing the significance of our observations.
Here's a second group of causes of erroneous assessment of significance.
- Virtual Brainstorming: II
- When virtual teams must brainstorm, they try to do so virtually. But brainstorming isn't just another
meeting. There's a real risk that virtual brainstorms might produce inadequate results. Here's Part
II of some suggestions for reducing the risk.
- Virtual Teams Need Generous Travel Budgets
- Although virtual team members who happen to be co-located do meet from time to time, meetings of people
who reside at different sites are often severely restricted by tight or non-existent travel budgets.
Such restrictions, intended to save money, can contribute to expensive delays and errors.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming February 21: The Ultimate Attribution Error at Work
- When we attribute the behavior of members of groups to some cause, either personal or situational, we tend to make systematic errors. Those errors can be expensive and avoidable. Available here and by RSS on February 21.
- And on February 28: Narcissistic Behavior at Work: I
- Briefly, when people exhibit narcissistic behavior they're engaging in activity that systematically places their own interests and welfare ahead of the interests and welfare of anyone or anything else. It's behavior that threatens the welfare of the organization and everyone employed there. Available here and by RSS on February 28.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenbivdXvwHODYgXjBFner@ChacvKrJcgTRAfEooSQAoCanyon.com or (617) 491-6289, 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, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
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 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.