![\"strategic_cycle\"](\"https:\/\/flevy.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/strategic_cycle.png\")
Our work in the neuroscience of strategy and change suggests that there may be three causes of this phenomenon.<\/p>\nThis is an area of much frustration for many of our clients. They feel that their people don\u2019t think strategically or apply enough creativity to recommended solutions. The executives then have to do their staff\u2019s strategic thinking themselves, often delegating less as a result. This can leave them feeling quite resentful as they have less time for their own strategic thinking\u00a0 – all leading to a dangerous situation in rapidly changing environments.<\/p>\n
What causes this lack of strategic thinking amongst people in an organisations? And how can we resolve the situation?<\/p>\n
Our work in the neuroscience of strategy and change suggests that there may be three causes of this phenomenon.<\/p>\n
Hierarchical structures, whatever their rationale[1]<\/sup><\/sup>, create a skewed distribution of power in favour of those at the top of the organisation. People further down the organisation display what\u00a0psychologists call a \u2018low power\u2019 disposition[2]<\/sup><\/sup>. We know from several research studies[3]<\/sup><\/sup> that low power significantly changes an individual\u2019s mental world[4]<\/sup><\/sup>.<\/p>\n Individuals who are lower down the organisation (with lower levels of power) spend a high proportion of their time being responsive to their superiors, anticipating their needs, multi-tasking and repeatedly shifting their attention. This \u2018continuous partial attention\u2019 draws huge amounts of mental energy as they try to remain sensitive to the changing internal environment. As a consequence, they have less time and cognitive energy to devote to strategic thinking.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the desire to \u2018please their boss\u2019 increases the level of anxiety and potential threat they face – again making it more difficult to access their creative and strategic thinking capabilities. We know that anxiety and stress promote a more active limbic system and give rise to greater levels of \u2018fight or flight\u2019 responses. All this contributes to lower creative and strategic thinking capability[5]<\/sup><\/sup>.<\/p>\n Finally, organisations with high power differences often give their people little view of the strategy process and rationale for decisions. This can further promote a lack of autonomy and fairness in the workplace – factors that only serve to heighten people\u2019s levels of threat and anxiety.<\/p>\n Many organisations proudly claim they are action oriented and focused on fast responses to changes in their environment. This emphasis on a high \u2018operating tempo\u2019 and speed of decision-making is usually regarded as a favourable aspect of an organisational culture. We\u2019re not advocating that organisations should be slow and not act swiftly to changes. Instead, we just need to be aware of the potential implications of the cultural drivers that emphasise speed and fast response – and try to mitigate any negative effects.<\/p>\n The first and last phases are conducted by a rational and linear process – generally termed \u2018analysis’. The middle process – often ignored in fast-moving and action oriented organisations – is the \u2018insight\u2019 process, and is vital to developing creative solutions to new challenges.<\/p>\n Given this, we see that a culture of speed and fast response can cause two related problems for the organisation:<\/p>\n Firstly, the bias for action often skips the insight phase. These cultures move directly from identifying the facts to determining a response. They rely on what neuroscientists call reflexive decisions<\/em> – relying on those patterns of behaviour that have worked in the past, or those embedded in their culture. There is no time for the reflection<\/em> that is required to generate new and creative insights, or to understand what\u2019s really<\/em> going on behind the data.<\/p>\n Secondly, because these cultures don\u2019t create time for a pause before making their decisions, they have little time for the self-regulation process – the process of checking the alignment of their decisions and actions with the overall purpose of the organisation. By making a series of knee-jerk decisions, they can end up drifting off strategy within a few decisions.<\/p>\n There are two factors that can limit an individual\u2019s ability to practice effective strategic thinking:<\/p>\n When thinking strategically, we develop a systems view of many interdependent variables and their interactions. We may not have directly experienced many of these variables (eg a disruptive technology, rising interest rates, poor staff engagement), but we are expected to understand their likely interactions in our strategic view. But without the necessary networks, classification structures and pathways in our memory (semantic memory), we cannot understand and process this information. All we have to work with, in this case, is our episodic memory – our direct experience of events.<\/p>\n So, people who have not been exposed and involved in forums where strategic thinking takes place – or have been denied an educational \/ social environment where issues such as disruptive technology or rising interest rates are discussed – will not be able to \u2018see the picture\u2019 that a systems view represents. Their memory has no access to the information necessary to create this view.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n We suggest three initiatives that can increase and improve the strategic thinking in your organisation:<\/p>\n Consequently, we need to find ways to insert pauses between our meetings, interrupt our people less frequently, and respect the fact that our rapidly changing environment actually requires more time for reflective thinking, insight and deliberation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n We acknowledge that these suggestions may appear somewhat counter-intuitive. After all, why should we be more open about our competitive strategy? Why should we insert pauses between our activities when the market is changing so rapidly? And we should we give our people more time when costs are being cut and people are being asked to do more with less?<\/p>\n However, the evidence is mounting that these brain-based approaches, supported by scientific research, are more likely to produce enhanced performance than the old approach of simply working harder and faster.<\/p>\n [1]<\/sup><\/sup> We don\u2019t subscribe to the view that hierarchical structures are necessarily inappropriate. There are several instances where, depending on the nature of the technology, skills and conditions, a hierarchical structure is appropriate. What we have outlined here is the implications of using a hierarchical structure that creates a significant imbalance of power between those at the top and those through the rest of the organisation. See, for example, Elliot Jaques work on In praise of hierarchy<\/em>, HBR, Jan-Feb 1990. Why Aren’t They More Strategic? This is an area of much frustration for many of our clients. They feel that their people don\u2019t think strategically or apply enough creativity to recommended solutions. The executives then have to do their staff\u2019s strategic thinking themselves, often delegating less as a result. This can leave them feeling quite… Why Can’t People Be More Strategic?<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":2645,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[81],"tags":[848],"class_list":["post-2644","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-strategy","tag-strategic-thinking"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/flevy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2644","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/flevy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/flevy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flevy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flevy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2644"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/flevy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2644\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2647,"href":"https:\/\/flevy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2644\/revisions\/2647"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flevy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2645"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/flevy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flevy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/flevy.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}2. Culture Based on Speed and Fast Response<\/h2>\n
![\"strategic_process\"](\"https:\/\/flevy.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/strategic_process.png\")
Understanding the strategy process (shown on the right) as three distinct phases helps to explain this phenomenon.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
3. Poor Understanding of Strategic Thinking<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
So, What Can We Do to Improve Strategic Thinking in Organisations?<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n[2]<\/sup><\/sup> We\u2019re not referring to the absolute level of power. Instead, the reference is to relative<\/em> power difference.
\n[3]<\/sup><\/sup> See Pamela Smith and her colleagues\u2019 work on power and its impact on mental processes.
\n[4]<\/sup><\/sup> PK Smith and AD Galinsky,\u00a0 The non-conscious nature of power: Cues and consequences<\/em>, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2010.
\n[5]<\/sup><\/sup> High stress and anxiety promote the \u2018growth\u2019 of the amygdala and concomitant \u2018shrinking\u2019 of the PFC\u2019s capability. These factors actively work against more creative insights and strategic thinking.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"