Escaping the One-Size-Fits-All Methodology Trap

I call the beginning of my professional career my “baby consultant days”. Although I’d just crossed into my 30’s and had a decade of military experience behind me, I was a total novice when it came to the practice of problem solving in a business environment. While I was thrilled that I’d been accepted into Daimler’s internal consulting organisations, something of a management training field which later came to be called Mercedes-Benz consulting, I was apprehensive about the work.

Fortunately, I needn’t have been. The Managing Director of our group, Dr. Robert Grob, recognized the potential in applying diverse thinking to problem-solving. Our consultancy’s mission was significant, influencing projects on a global scale. Dr. Grob stressed that diversity of thought and experience was crucial for creating great solutions. It was in mastering various methods and frameworks, he said, that I would be able to navigate the complex business landscapes we operated in.

Over the next four years, I immersed myself in learning different problem-solving frameworks. The field was vast, filled with various methodologies, each with its strengths and weaknesses. The opportunity to explore these methodologies, both theoretically and practically, was invaluable. It was a period of integrating existing frameworks and developing our unique models and toolsets.

I began to also think more critically about problem solving frameworks, taxonomies and approaches. Over time I experienced how a methodology could give an organisation confidence when dealing with ambiguity, helped to align on a common cause and sometimes did lead to meaningful results. However, I also realized that these frameworks could act as a crutch for those unwilling or unable to address the root causes of the issues at hand.

Here are three insights from my journey into applied rational thinking in a business context:

Methodological Flexibility: There is no one-size-fits-all methodology. The effectiveness of a method is contingent upon its alignment with the specific challenges at hand, the team, the leaders and the broader organizational context.

Critical Evaluation: Methodologies can sometimes serve as a shield, obscuring underlying issues rather than addressing them. It’s imperative to have the willingness and ability to dig deeper beyond the structured frameworks and to not be afraid to synthesis new methods to uncover and address core issues.

People Matter Most: While the application of rational thinking methods is fundamental, it's crucial to not become overly reliant on them. A balanced approach, one which includes a genuine readiness to understand and adapt to the people impacted is vital.

After more than twenty years doing this, I can confidently say that there is no “one-size-fits-all” methodology. There is only the one that best suits the impacted team, leadership and which suits the context.