Premise:
It seems that our brains are naturally wired to think in an additive way when we are trying to solve problems. It is one of those brain hacks that we picked up from our ancestors but is no longer as useful to us as it was to them. So, if we can learn to think in the opposite direction, i.e, in a subtractive way, we might surprise ourselves with the solutions that we might arrive at.
The Research and its Findings:
Here is a research paper published by Nature which looks at this phenomenon and concludes
We show that people systematically default to searching for additive transformations, and consequently overlook subtractive transformations
People systematically overlook subtractive changes by Gabrielle S. Adams, Benjamin A. Converse, Andrew H. Hales & Leidy E. Klotz
They also go on to argue
Defaulting to searches for additive changes may be one reason that people struggle to mitigate overburdened schedules11, institutional red tape12 and damaging effects on the planet13,14.
People systematically overlook subtractive changes by Gabrielle S. Adams, Benjamin A. Converse, Andrew H. Hales & Leidy E. Klotz
This accounts for all the bloating that creeps up in our policies, all the different layers of red tape in our processes and feature creep in our products, ever expanding to do lists or the clutter in our lives (physical, emotional and psychological).
We default to adding stuff rather than subtracting them. If we look at this information as a leader responsible for driving change or transformation, we can understand that this could potentially be a cause for failure of the change effort.
Thinking and acting in an additive way, increases the complexity of the system that we are trying to change by introducing new variables.
This is reason enough for us to train ourselves and our teams to deliberately think subtractively whenever we are attempting to change something. The first step in the process to solve a problem, is to explore if there is anything (process, person, thinking, mindset – we can go as meta as you think the team can handle) that can be eliminated to achieve what we want to achieve.
We also need to think about what caused this problem to arise in the first place and is that also a result of additive thinking and if yes, what can we do to remove that root cause.
This short video explains the research in a bit more detail.
In conclusion:
And if the researchers (and my personal experience) are to be believed, in most cases, we should be able to achieve our desired outcome – at less cost, less effort and / or less time (cheaper, faster and better).
As change agents, it is imperative that we model this thinking in our behaviour before we can expect anyone else can exhibit the same.
