One thing I’ve always wanted to understand is how teams actually make good decisions when the problem is unclear, time is limited, and getting it wrong matters. A few years ago, I had a chance to see this up close. I was working as a consultant at the time and was invited to RAF Cranfield with about twenty people from other organisations to tackle some of the physical and mental problem-solving exercises used in aircrew selection.
A large part of the day involved getting the whole team across a series of obstacles using only limited, basic equipment, before the time ran out. None of the courses had an obvious solution. It was as much a mental challenge as a physical one. I still think about that day far more often than many courses I’ve taken since.
Challenge 1: The Committee
We started with what felt like the sensible approach, and one we use all the time at work without really thinking about it. Workshop some ideas. Compare the options. Consider the risks. Build a plan. Once we'd solved the whole thing, we'd whizz everyone across like ducks down a slide.
Our conference didn’t last long.
“Don’t just stand there gassing — the clock’s ticking,” the instructors shouted.
So we stopped planning and moved. We grabbed the rope and the plank of wood and we got to the first obstacle. In doing so, we'd familiarised ourselves with the task, the equipment and how to use it. We were now far better prepared to work out what to do next.
Lesson: You don't need to solve the whole problem before you start. Get going. What you learn from doing the first bit will help you work out the next.
Next, each of us got a turn at leading. The leader had a two-minute head start to see the course before the rest of the team joined them. That's where things got interesting.
Challenge 2: The Commander
Oh Eric, why? I suppose someone had to.
Eric stood confidently at the front, announced that he had a plan and had solved the whole challenge, then started barking individual instructions at everyone.
“You do this. You lift that. Move there. Pass that.”
I had no idea what his plan was, how it was supposed to work, or the best way for me to help him. Neither, apparently, did anyone else. We stood quietly waiting for our next instruction.
Lesson: Micromanagement only uses your brain, not the collective power of the team. And worse, it can shut you off from the better ideas that other people might have.
Challenge 3: The Contributor Leader
Another approach was to ask the team for quick-fire ideas and get everyone moving. This worked much better.
Except our leader couldn't resist picking up planks and arranging blocks himself. Before long, some of the team were standing around watching because they weren't really sure how to contribute. He was trying to lead and do at the same time.
Lesson: If you're busy doing the work yourself, are you still giving everyone else the space to contribute?
Challenge 4: The Manager
Judith was different. She was clear about what we needed to achieve and upfront that she hadn't solved the whole problem. She asked for ideas and then, importantly, stood back and managed what was happening.
This was the first time the work felt calm, focused and effective.
Lesson: Sometimes the leader needs to stay out of the work. Judith could see things the rest of us couldn't because she wasn't trying to move the planks herself. Someone needed to keep an eye on the whole problem.
Challenge 5: One Big Problem
Then it was Mike's turn. His challenge was different. It had a flow to it and couldn't really be broken down into a series of smaller problems. Fundamentally, if we started wrong, we'd probably fail. Mike took a tip from Judith. He stood back and managed, sending others ahead of him. Except he soon found himself at the back. He couldn't see where we were going and couldn't coordinate the team. The approach that had just worked brilliantly for Judith didn't work for Mike.
Lesson: Sometimes you do need to lead from the front. It's difficult to make good decisions about something you can't see.
Challenge 6: Delegate
By the final challenge, we'd had the benefit of watching all of this play out, and it was my turn. I got moving, but also asked two people to think ahead about the next part of the course before everyone reached it. While they worked on that, the rest of the team could concentrate on the problem immediately in front of us. By the time we got there, a delightful solution was ready.
When I originally reflected on this experience, my takeaway was simply: break down the problem, delegate, encourage ideas. I think there's more to it than that now. What I hadn't really appreciated was that they'd been given an outcome: get us through the next stage. They decided for themselves what they needed to do.
Adaptability, outcomes and delegation
I originally came away from Cranfield thinking I'd learned something about different leadership styles. Looking back, I think the bigger lesson was that there wasn’t one right way to lead. What worked well for Judith didn’t work for Mike. And what worked on one obstacle didn’t necessarily work on the next. The situation changed, so we needed to adapt how we dealt with it.
I also think that at work there’s a tendency, when we want better outcomes, to try and put in more control. Perhaps by adding more checks or designing a more prescriptive process. Is that the 'Commander' in us coming out? Whilst this can sometimes help, it can also leave fewer people actually thinking about the problem. That day was a good reminder that a team becomes much more capable when everyone has the space to think, contribute and challenge, rather than simply waiting to be told what to do.
And this brings me on to how I delegate. If I tell someone exactly what to do, then I’m really just asking them to carry out my solution. I might have delegated the work, but I haven’t really delegated the thinking or created much space for a better solution.
Perhaps that’s why the final task worked the best. By asking two people to look ahead at what was coming next, I hadn’t told them how to solve it. They knew what we were trying to achieve and had the space to work out how. While the rest of us dealt with the problem in front of us, they were already thinking about the next one. By the time we got there, they’d worked something out.
Looking back, I think we worked best when more of the team were thinking about the outcome and working out how to solve the problems we faced along the way.
So my question for you is:
What did this article make you notice about the way your team works, and what will you do differently tomorrow because of it?
I’d love to hear your thoughts.