How does an effective leader’s mind work? This is a very different focus than on results alone. It backs up the analysis to an earlier point and begs the question of whether there is a different way of analyzing — of thinking — that leads to more successful results more often. Many authors have written about this difference without giving a definition to it, but Roger Martin has. He says it boils down to the difference between conventional thinking and integrative thinking. Many authors preceding him have acknowledged the difference:

“Test your decision against the future. .. . . good decision makers are not blinded by the now. They take the present situation and play it out in their heads to see what happens to it over time.” (Nick Morgan, Harvard Management Communication Letter)

“Think ‘best,’ not ‘either-or.’” Beware of assuming you must decide between distinct alternatives. The best decisions often result when thinkers leap over restrictive mental boundaries and embrace more broad, creative options.” (Executive Leadership Special Bonus Report “Power Decision Making,” National Institute of Business Management)

“Beware the rush to judgment and action. Don’t short-circuit a wide-ranging inquiry of what the fundamental problems are and a thorough examination of which precedents best apply to your . . . current circumstances.” (Lauren Gary, Harvard Management Update)

And Martin provides further structure for understanding the difference. At each step of the decision-making process, he says that leaders work through four steps. Those who are conventional thinkers seek simplicity along the way and lock themselves into thinking their decisions must involve trade-offs. Integrative thinkers, in contrast, welcome complexity — even if it means repeating steps in the process or each step taking much longer — and this creates opportunities for innovation and creative solutions to the issues at hand. Martin’s four steps are:

• Determining Salience: A conventional thinker focuses only on the obviously relevant features; an integrative thinker seeks less obvious but potentially relevant factors. Instead of seeking to eliminate factors to consider, consider what might be salient but ignored.
• Analyzing Causality: A conventional thinker considers one-way, linear relationships between variables, in which more of A produces more of B; an integrative thinker considers multidirectional and nonlinear relationships among variables.
• Envisioning the Decision Architecture: A conventional thinker breaks problems into pieces and works on them separately or sequentially; an integrative thinker sees problems as a whole, examining how the parts fit together and how decisions affect one another.
• Achieving Resolution: A conventional thinker makes either-or choices; settles for the “best available;” an integrative thinker creatively resolves tensions among opposing ideas; generating innovative outcomes.

Integrative thinkers welcome complications and complexity “because that’s where the best answers come from.” The trouble is, we generally want to avoid complicating matters by introducing additional variables or “interesting propositions,” but effective leaders who come up with unique and successful solutions don’t think this way. They look beyond the options originally presented. To the question “Is strategy or execution more important?” Jack Welch responded: “I don’t think it’s an ‘either-or.’”

The ideal desired result is the focus of integrative thinking, and refined focus on that ideal leads one to consider everything that could impact the result and figure it all into the decisions and actions to take. “Integrative thinking generates options and new solutions.” It tests ideas and confronts all potential obstacles and glitches and considers the effects of them compounding each other. Geologist Thomas Chamberlin, a nineteenth century president of the University of Wisconsin, called such integrative thinking “multiple working hypotheses” and proposed that it was better than the traditional scientific method which tested one idea at a time in isolation. It’s more “real world” and in the scientific world was very provocative at the time, because it was considered, ironically, unrealistic for science to test hypotheses that way.

It is also inherently more optimistic. Martin says,

“Conventional thinking glosses over potential solutions and fosters the illusion that creative solutions don’t actually exist. With integrative thinking, aspirations rise over time. With conventional thinking, they wear away with every apparent reinforcement of the lesson that life is about accepting unattractive trade-offs. Fundamentally, the conventional thinker prefers to accept the world just as it is, whereas the integrative thinker welcomes the challenge of shaping the world for the better.”

The next problem you face or decision to make, consider whether or not you are expanding your thinking to all the possible variables and explanations for the problem. Always remember that “a conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.” Are you making a trade-off rather than seeking the best solution?

Source: Martin, Roger. “How Successful Leaders Think.” Harvard Business Review, June 2007. Pp. 60 – 67.

[Monika Byrd, July 2007]

Questions or Comments about Phi Theta Kappa Leadership Briefs may be directed to Monika Byrd, Director of Leadership Development Programs.