Part III: Leadership and Organization Development by Design - Strategic Agility

Strategic agility is all about leadership thinking and decision making.

Let's focus on thinking. I really like Kenneth Craik's definition of thinking. He proposed thinking is a feedback support process which is both physical and mental in nature. The process occurs between the time we perceive something and the resulting actions. As humans, we decide a couple of things either consciously or unconsciously. Among them are:

1. How long to remain in the thinking process
2. The framework we will utilize to examine our perceptions

A choice to overly lengthen or delay the thinking process can also lead to "analysis paralysis".

In an excellent piece of work titled Mental Models, the authors said, as humans, we tend to see things through mental frameworks we have constructed. The frameworks or mental models and patterns we use can lead us to either course:

1. rectification (correction)
2. reinforcement (keep going in the same direction)
3. redirection (new paths forward)

Therefore, our view of the world, ourselves, what we are to do, and how we are to do it are
dependent on the mental models we have constructed. These models help us to anticipate and clarify our interactions with others and with the environment.

Consequently, according to McKendree, Small, and Stenning, mental models are a tool of thinking and they are constantly evolving models of models. Mental models and representations are so powerful that they can affect not only the rules, procedures, and strategies one holds but also how one performs (Mental Models, 1983). So, in terms of speed and the frameworks utilized, leadership thinking agility is astronomically important. Why?
 

If strategy and the goals of the firm are interdependent, then a mistake in strategic thinking can lead to a mistake in goals established for the firm. How could this happen? Robert Grant proposed agility challenges occur as a result of behavioral and cognitive factors. Included among the factors are:

1. rigidity relative to core capabilities (sticking with core competence no matter what)
2. social pattern disruptions (patterns of collaboration, coordination, communication)
3. perceptions of threats to power (control)
4. and complex configurations between strategy, structure, systems, culture, and employee skills (complexity).

According to Grant, we also have a tendency to lock into common structures and strategies and to prefer what's known over what's to be discovered. The preferences are reinforced by what is called bounded rationality and satisficing. Bounded rationality refers to the limited capacity of humans to process information. The limitation ultimately leads to constraints on the set of choices from which one can select. Satisficing refers to settling for satisfactory rather than optimal performance as a result of the termination of the search for better solutions once a satisfactory performance level is achieved.

Consequently, Hickman proposed the response to the environment is a critical and systemic thinking challenge for which leaders have to be adept at conceptualizing their strategic insight. Leaders have to be adept at surfacing their thinking and associated underlying assumptions in order to understand how they operate to undermine their own intentions. Again, thinking ability is critical because as Odiorne (1979) explained, a mistake in goals will produce a mistake in activity.

So, what is an L&OD professional to do in the face of these challenges during complex and chaotic times. Well, to use a Becky-ism, proposing that "it is 5 o'clock somewhere" is not the answer. This Becky-ism was the cue that it was time for Happy Hour and the alcohol that comes along with it. Yes, and one must soberly face up to these challenges.

The key as an L&OD professional is to examine underlying assumptions as part of the work. If true clarity and communication is to be attained, then this level setting step should not be missed. Why? Because, in my experience, often the underlying assumptions are different for each key decision maker. Further, the key decision makers may also not be on the same page regarding key terms or words they are using to describe the circumstances or solutions.

So, is everyone really on the same page and singing from the same hymn book? Are we just assuming so? Would you think it probably important to have clarity regarding assumptions for alignment, change management, and true sustainability of solutions implemented. As a very wise and wonderful leader once said, if the assumptions are right then the options to deal with the challenges stand the chance of being right.

The next post will include a discussion of three strategic organizational frameworks leaders may be using to make decisions. Until then, ask and answer the right questions in the right way and be the change you want to see!

Phyllis L. Wright, Ph.D.
View my profile on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/phyllislajunewright/
Follow @PhyllWright Twitter

This post contains an "ism" from a former colleague, Becky Hall. She could easily come up with quips to add humor to any situation. Of course, no alcoholic beverages were allowed during the course of a work day from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at any time. So, at various times during the day, if a heavy conversation led most of us to think we needed to be at Happy Hour immediately, then Becky would break the tension by saying, "Well, it's five o'clock somewhere!". This was, of course, a joke! Thank you for the humor Becky.

References
Craik, K. J. W. (1966). The nature of psychology. Stephen L. Sherwood (Ed.). Cambridge,
          United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Grant, R. M. (2010). Contemporary strategy analysis (Seventh ed.). Chichester, United
          Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Hickman, G. R. (Ed.). (1998). Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era. Thousand
           Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
McKendree, J., Small, C., & Stenning, K. (2002). The role of representation in teaching
           and learning critical thinking skills. Educational Review, 54(1), 57-67. Retrieved from
           http://web.ebscohost.com.library.dub.edu:2048/ehost/pdf? 
           vid=5&hid=114&sid=63b1980c-eb34-4915-b639-892cf7e89aa5%40sessionmgr102
Mental Models. (1983). In Dedre Gerner and Albert L. Stevens (Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
           Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst? 
           action=openPageViewer&docId=55455342#
Odiorne, G. S. (1979). MBO II: a system of managerial leadership for the 80's. Belmont,
            CA: Fearon Pitman Publishers, Inc.