In a recent HBR article, referring to his book ‘Playing to Win’, Roger Martin talks of issues clients are experiencing in applying a cascading process to make strategic decisions. The process is simple, yet efficient [just the way we like things]:
- What is our winning aspiration?
- Where will we play?
- How will we win?
- What capabilities must we have?
- What management systems do we need?
Whilst the elements of the process are sound, it seems the linear portrayal of the process may be causing the issue. In spite of the diagram displaying iterative cycles between steps, the diagram fails to sufficiently emphasise the need to perform some steps concurrently, in particular in combining ‘where we will play’ with ‘how to win’. This criticism is not meant as a fault of Martins, rather a missing link between the diagram and how our brains work. And the reason is this.
Our brain loves linear processing – and most of our education has been Socratic in nature – learn/do this, then learn/do that. However, the best creative minds don’t work in this way. They process concurrently, in ever increasing circles. Of course, this can mean, that in seeking to make strategic decisions, we end up with a lot of ideas and no decisions. Hence the need for well composed teams, consisting of those ‘creative concurrents’ to spark the imagination, as well as ‘linear consecutives’ to keep the process moving forward. What is often missing is a process to combine these two strengths into a cohesive strategic decision process.
The issue got me thinking about how, as authors, we design our diagrams. When creating illustrations, a bit of understanding on how the brain works in driving the way we interpret information can help to foster a greater depth of understanding amongst readers. Our brains are lazy by nature – they will seek the easiest, least processing route to assimilate information and make decisions. Even if diagrams are there purely as support to text – our brain will focus more on the illustration than it will on the text. Continue to think lazy, least resistance, and simplification.
In this case, Martin may have been correct in what he was suggesting, but as our brain focuses in on the route of least resistance, it will likely fail to give sufficient importance to critical detail . In this case, it will discount the iteration cycles between steps. Perhaps just simply presenting this process as a circle, rather than a waterfall would have encouraged the brain to perceive it as Martin intended it to be practiced. I for one, will certainly be looking back at my diagrams and reassessing them for better brain perception.
And, you might ask, how is your brain interpreting information used in making strategic decisions?
Reference: HBR article
