The Six Disciplines of Strategic Thinking by Michael D. Watkins

Author:Michael D. Watkins
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780063357969
Publisher: HarperCollins
Published: 2023-11-17T00:00:00+00:00

Enders and Chevallier’s framework is helpful because it memorably distils your thinking. It’s especially valuable when problem-solving involves multiple stakeholders. Why? Because the framework is a “shared language” that helps you to align stakeholders with divergent views of the problem, the potential solutions and the criteria for evaluating them. Striking agreements on the definitions of the quest, the treasure and dragons can help you manage your stakeholders more effectively.

The first step in framing is to precisely define the quest in the form of a question that crystallizes the problem. In doing so, it’s essential to “size” the problem, which means striking a balance between being overly ambitious and not ambitious enough. If you try to “boil the ocean,” or make the project unnecessarily difficult, you set yourself up for failure. Likewise, you’re destined for disappointment if you focus on figuring out “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” The right level of ambition lies somewhere between the ocean and the angels.

As you define the problem, be both strategic and creative. Being strategic means understanding the full set of stakeholder interests and defining the problem in ways that consider them. Being creative means understanding and leveraging biases in how people think to move things forward.

Enders and Chevallier give a witty example of creativity in problem-framing:

Two monks living in an abbey want to be able to smoke tobacco while they pray. The impact likely will be more praying but less concentration when doing so, so it’s hard to evaluate whether there is a net benefit. The first goes to the abbot and asks, “Is it OK if I smoke while I pray?” and gets rebuffed. The second monk does the same but asks the abbot, “Is it OK if I pray while I smoke?” and gets permission.5

This underscores how people think about gains and losses, specifically the well-established decision-making bias known as loss aversion. Research in cognitive psychology has shown that people care more deeply about avoiding losses than achieving equivalent gains.6 The first monk framed his request in a way that highlighted potential losses for the abbot – smoking while praying could impair average prayer quality. The second monk emphasized the potential gains for the abbot – being allowed to smoke while praying could result in more praying.

This takes us to the second step you’ll use in framing: specifying the criteria used to evaluate potential solutions. Evaluative criteria help you answer the questions:

What must be true about an acceptable solution to the problem (i.e. the treasure)?

How will potential solutions be assessed in terms of their relative attractiveness?

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.