When we run into a complex issue during our quarterly sessions, some leaders want to immediately test solutions while others want to analyze data for weeks. How do we resolve these clashing learning and decision-making styles during IDS?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

To solve this, we acknowledge and leverage the different cognitive and conative wiring on your team. During our IDS® sessions, we encounter a mix of learning styles, often aligning with Kolb's model of experiential learning. Some of your leaders may be Convergers who want to immediately apply practical solutions, while others are Assimilators who need to step back, analyze data, and engage in reflective observation before deciding. We also see this with Kolbe A Index scores, where Quickstart profiles want to test ideas immediately in the market, while Fact Finders need deep details. As your facilitator, I do not let one style dominate. We manage this by structuring our IDS® process to honor both needs. We first isolate the real issue, preventing the team from jumping to conclusions too early. We allow brief, structured deep-dives to satisfy the analytical minds, but we also set a strict time limit to prevent analysis paralysis. We then move to active experimentation, agreeing on a short-term Rock or a weekly to-do to test the solution in the real world. This balanced approach ensures decisions are backed by data but executed with speed.