I’ve been thinking a lot about why some people are wired for concrete solution-thinking while others naturally gravitate toward more abstract, problem-focused, or strategy-level thinking.
Awareness of problem-solving styles (not personalities) and how they complement each other is so rarely acknowledged or addressed, so I really appreciate reading this. The way you characterize the two partners in your opening story aligns very closely with the Basadur Innovation Profile (https://www.basadur.com/the-profile/), which shows how each of us is a blend of four different thinking styles, with a stronger primary preference and a close secondary one. Partner 1 sounds like a Conceptualizer-Optimizer, someone who enjoys abstract "why" thinking but is also keen on concrete "how" modeling and planning. Partner 2 resembles a Generator-Implementer, an idea factory who is eager to put them immediately into action. You might find the research behind the profile and the whole Basadur system quite interesting: https://www.basadur.com/research/
In my own experience, having the knowledge not only of styles but how they align to the problem-solving process has helped me navigate difficult situations, but it's true that it can only get you so far. Ideally, a team and leadership should be on board and fully equipped with a shared awareness, (process) language, skills, and behaviors, but also be able to flex and adapt as needed.
About the uncertainty and concrete solutions. I think one of the reasons why it may be sometimes much easier to "embrace uncertainty" (in particular if you're one that is on the driver's seat or close to it), is that ...
Even if you do not have a specific plan yet which you're 100% confident of (and which to communicate to others), you have very likely thought of plan A, plan B, plan C, plan D, and may be even plan E. But others do not know all that, and for them the level of uncertainty is thus way higher.
I have seen this so many times myself. I am not confident yet about the detailed plan (perhaps I waiting for some pieces of information still to be available, and postpone the decision a bit to make a better decision) - but I am confident that we can find the solution, because there are enough tools in the toolbox and enough experience. However, not all others know that or they want to know the specific plan for some other reason and for them the level of uncertainty is thus way higher.
The communication style differences explain so much of the pain I had experienced reporting to the CEO.. I was in exploratory mode with lots of big ideas crystallizing into something concrete. While I didn’t have conviction that building X would give us PMF, I believed that testing more hypotheses quickly can get us there faster. Meanwhile, she wanted Gantt charts, and nicely laid out launch plans. Our wires are often crossed, and led to much frustration on both sides.
I have a trail of artefacts through my career that point at this sole mismatch.
Recently been sharing the idea of “uncertainty bubbles” - where you outwardly project that confident solution (knowing that everyone outside the bubble knows it’ll change later duh) while inwardly creating space for the uncertainty and massively parallel exploration (knowing that everyone inside the bubble knows this is a temporary bubble).
Critically, I think you have to find ways to generate these bubbles as needed: they cost energy to hold and can’t be long lived or the external need for legibility encroached on the internal need for exploration.
Awareness of problem-solving styles (not personalities) and how they complement each other is so rarely acknowledged or addressed, so I really appreciate reading this. The way you characterize the two partners in your opening story aligns very closely with the Basadur Innovation Profile (https://www.basadur.com/the-profile/), which shows how each of us is a blend of four different thinking styles, with a stronger primary preference and a close secondary one. Partner 1 sounds like a Conceptualizer-Optimizer, someone who enjoys abstract "why" thinking but is also keen on concrete "how" modeling and planning. Partner 2 resembles a Generator-Implementer, an idea factory who is eager to put them immediately into action. You might find the research behind the profile and the whole Basadur system quite interesting: https://www.basadur.com/research/
In my own experience, having the knowledge not only of styles but how they align to the problem-solving process has helped me navigate difficult situations, but it's true that it can only get you so far. Ideally, a team and leadership should be on board and fully equipped with a shared awareness, (process) language, skills, and behaviors, but also be able to flex and adapt as needed.
About the uncertainty and concrete solutions. I think one of the reasons why it may be sometimes much easier to "embrace uncertainty" (in particular if you're one that is on the driver's seat or close to it), is that ...
Even if you do not have a specific plan yet which you're 100% confident of (and which to communicate to others), you have very likely thought of plan A, plan B, plan C, plan D, and may be even plan E. But others do not know all that, and for them the level of uncertainty is thus way higher.
I have seen this so many times myself. I am not confident yet about the detailed plan (perhaps I waiting for some pieces of information still to be available, and postpone the decision a bit to make a better decision) - but I am confident that we can find the solution, because there are enough tools in the toolbox and enough experience. However, not all others know that or they want to know the specific plan for some other reason and for them the level of uncertainty is thus way higher.
The communication style differences explain so much of the pain I had experienced reporting to the CEO.. I was in exploratory mode with lots of big ideas crystallizing into something concrete. While I didn’t have conviction that building X would give us PMF, I believed that testing more hypotheses quickly can get us there faster. Meanwhile, she wanted Gantt charts, and nicely laid out launch plans. Our wires are often crossed, and led to much frustration on both sides.
This resonates hard!
I have a trail of artefacts through my career that point at this sole mismatch.
Recently been sharing the idea of “uncertainty bubbles” - where you outwardly project that confident solution (knowing that everyone outside the bubble knows it’ll change later duh) while inwardly creating space for the uncertainty and massively parallel exploration (knowing that everyone inside the bubble knows this is a temporary bubble).
Critically, I think you have to find ways to generate these bubbles as needed: they cost energy to hold and can’t be long lived or the external need for legibility encroached on the internal need for exploration.