Chapter 4
A Methodology
No lie, just know I chose my own fate I drove past the fork in the road and went straight.
—JAY Z
Is Jay Z an integrative thinker? The rapper, producer, and entrepreneur certainly falls into the highly successful leader category, having sold 100 million records, earned more than twenty Grammy awards, and amassed a personal net worth in excess of $600 million. But we have to admit, neither of us had much considered his approach to decision making—not, that is, until one of our MBA students sent us an excerpt from Jay Z’s memoir, Decoded. Our student, Adam, was convinced the rapper was just like the integrative thinkers we’d talked about in class.
His evidence? In the book, Jay Z explores and explains his lyrics, including a rhyme from “Renegade” about driving past the fork in the road and going straight. The annotation follows: “I love this concept: Instead of being forced into a fucked-up choice where you lose either way, choose your own path. The fork in the road I was presented with was either having those pockets full of lint, or pockets full of dope. I went straight—stopped selling drugs—but I also didn’t accept the false choice between poverty and breaking the law. I found my own way through and with music, I try to help others see their way through it, too.”1
In this note, Adam heard an echo of integrative thinking. As he saw it, Jay Z took the same approach as A.G. Lafley and Isadore Sharp, but in a different context. Like his fellow CEOs, Jay Z began with an understanding of the choice before him, rejected those existing alternatives, and worked to create a third way. Having never met Jay Z, we can’t say for sure that he’s an integrative thinker. But Adam made a compelling case, and Jay Z became one of the most notable names on a long list of potential integrative thinkers supplied by our students, colleagues, and friends. Since we’ve been teaching integrative thinking, people have told us that they see integrative thinking in the choices of everyone from Barack Obama to Bill Gates to themselves.
Of course, assuming any particular approach is the cause of successful past outcomes is a dangerous game to play with any theory. But it is clear to us that some leaders, in various contexts and levels of organizations, have found a way to reject trade-offs and create great choices for themselves and their teams. It is equally clear that many of these leaders did so implicitly, without a conscious decision to think differently or a concrete understanding of precisely how they reached those different answers. For some, such as Jay Z, it seems as if the choice was an act of will in the face of an impossible situation. For others, it was a slow, iterative experiment in problem solving. Either way, few of the leaders we’ve studied were explicitly taught how to think in an integrative mode—in a systematic, repeatable way.
Our challenge, then, has been to translate anecdote into methodology. Mainly through trial and error, we’ve developed a process for thinking through problems that gives you a better chance of rejecting false choices and finding your own way through to a great choice (see figure 4-1). Over the past decade, we have refined the process as we’ve watched our students employ the methodology on wicked problems and as we’ve led the process with groups of executives on their toughest challenges.
The process we have developed and refined has four primary stages, with substeps within each one. This chapter provides a high-level explanation of the end-to-end process, before we explore each stage more deeply in subsequent chapters.
The integrative thinking process, unsurprisingly, begins with opposing models. The first phase is to articulate the models—to frame the problem and tease out two opposing models for solving it. The second stage is to examine the models—to make a thoughtful, deep dive into the models by holding them in tension with one another. These two stages rely on metacognition and empathy: in them, you seek to understand the nature of the problem, to parse your own thinking about it, and to deeply understand how others might think about it differently.
In stages 3 and 4, you shift away from seeking to understand the opposing models and toward generating new models, creatively building from both opposing models to design an answer that is ultimately superior to either one. The third stage is to explore the possibilities—to ask what kind of integrative answers might be possible. This is a divergent exercise that has you explore a number of different resolutions. The final stage is to assess the prototypes—to test different possible answers before moving ahead. This final stage is in the service of creating an answer that is not only elegant in concept but also implementable (and implemented) in practice. As Peter Drucker said, unless a decision has been translated to action, “it is at best a good intention.”2 These two stages rely heavily on creativity and empathy—working with others to develop new answers and test them with users.
At a glance, the integrative thinking process appears to be linear. In practice, it isn’t quite so simple. Often, the best insights come only in the repetition of key substeps, returning to earlier stages as your understanding shifts and deepens. Iteration is an inherent and important part of the process. For now, though, let’s assume a stepwise progression through the stages and explain each in turn.
STAGE 1: ARTICULATE THE MODELS
First, you define the problem you face. This is a matter of quickly—and without obsessing about language—prototyping a problem statement. The only criterion is that the problem be one that the team feels is worth solving. From there, you identify two extreme and opposing answers to the problem, turning it from a general problem into a two-sided dilemma.
To get more concrete about this activity, consider the challenge presented to us by a good friend who was appointed chief learning officer at a financial services company. He had joined HR from a line of business a few years before but did not have any formal background in learning. One of the most significant challenges he faced was a turf war between the New York–based corporate learning team and the leaders in each of the regions and lines of business. It was an ongoing struggle over who should have control over the learning agenda for the organization (and the resources to support it). The problem at hand was how to more effectively and collaboratively deliver training in a large multinational organization. The opposing answers our friend identified were either to (a) centralize all training under the chief learning officer or to (b) entirely decentralize training, delegating authority over it to the functions and regions.
Of course, there are many alternatives for structuring training other than these two options. But we have found in practice that if we make the two options extreme alternatives, these starting options naturally subsume a large number of alternatives between them (in this case, many alternatives for the training issue fit on a spectrum between “do it all centrally” and “do it all locally”). We have found that exploring a fundamental tension between two extreme and opposing options tends to surface the best information for generating new possibilities. So that is where we begin.
Next, it’s important to sketch your two opposing ideas to enough resolution that an observer could understand the essence of each model. This means taking the time to explain in a few sentences what each model would look like in practice; in our example, centralization means that all development of training programs and content delivery is done at the head office and on the basis of corporate priorities; decentralization means that every unit is given the funds to develop or source its own local training, addressing the specific needs it deems most pressing. This simple description of the models helps ensure that the team is talking about the same things, with a degree of concreteness that will be helpful when it comes time to dig deeper into the models.
Once the opposing models are clear, you explore each model in turn, seeking to understand how the model works, what benefits it produces, and why these outcomes matter. See figures 4-2 and 4-3 for a summary of the key benefits of centralization and decentralization for each of the most important stakeholders in the decision. Creating these tables is a process of looking deeply into the models to understand what they have to offer to the most important stakeholders, to help you see why someone might value the outcomes that are produced under each model.
Figure 4-2. What’s Behind Centralization?
For instance, you might begin to see that a centralized HR function would provide lower costs, greater control, and consistency. It might reinforce a global culture and connect individuals across functions and departments. Decentralization, in contrast, might offer training with a better fit to market needs, increased business performance in each market, greater speed of delivery, and stronger local team cohesion. All these outcomes are valuable. If you choose only one model, you give up many of the benefits of the other. You want the best of both models, so you move on to the next stage.
STAGE 2: EXAMINE THE MODELS
Integrative thinking leverages the tension between models to create something new. So after you have separately articulated opposing models, the next step is to look at the models together, explicitly holding them in tension via a series of exploratory questions. These questions are not intended to be a step-by-step checklist but rather a series of prompts to start a rich conversation about the models.
To begin, ask yourself how the models are similar and different. In our example, networking is a benefit of both centralized and decentralized approaches. In the decentralized model, the benefit is building deeper connections with close peers; in centralization, it is meeting folks from across the company. How might the different players weigh these different benefits? In terms of differences, you might note where there are benefits in one model, such as the economies of scale that come from centralization, that are absent in the opposing model. What are the implications of these differences for the path ahead?
Then, consider what you most value from the models as they are articulated. The answer to this question will be different for different people on your team. One person might emphasize agility and alignment; someone else might value better business outcomes and economies of scale. At this stage, note the different preferences so that you can use them as prompts to create different possible solutions down the line.
Next, you start to question the models as you have articulated them and the benefits you have defined. You ask what really drives the tension between the models. In this case, you might note that centralization enables consistency across the organization, a benefit that is in tension with the ability to specifically address local needs in the decentralized model. It is hard to have both consistency and market-specific solutions at the same time; any attempt to create a better answer should take this tension into account.
You can also explore the assumptions that underlie each model. An assumption behind the decentralized model, for instance, might be that employees in each region are more similar to one another than they are to peers in other regions. An assumption of the centralized model might be that organizational needs are best understood and met at a global level. What if these assumptions didn’t hold? How might you think about the problem then?
You might also ask about some of the cause-and-effect relationships at work in the models. You might explore, for instance, the relationship between autonomy and learning. You might ask how local decision making could increase speed of implementation. You might map out how each model produces learning outcomes. By digging into these relationships, you can start to anticipate the effects of new models.
All these questions are aimed at digging deeper into how the models work, where they break down, and how they might be understood differently. These questions can also help you understand the aspects of those elements of the models that you don’t want to lose as you move forward to create new answers.
STAGE 3: EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITIES
The third stage of the integrative thinking process signals a shift. After the models are defined and examined, you seek to integrate them into a new, superior answer. One way to approach this stage is to reflect on your thinking and simply ask, How might I turn those components of the models that I most value into a new model that better solves my problem? What might that look like? For example, our chief learning officer might ask, How might I create a training model that is both agile and consistent?
Exploring the possibilities is not an easy task; it requires creativity, insight, and some luck. Fortunately, when the answers aren’t forthcoming or time is a pressing issue, you can make the task easier by using three guiding questions.
How might we create a new model using one building block from each opposing model, while throwing away the rest of each model?
Here, you identify one component from each model (such as “customizing content to context” from decentralization, and “economies of scale” from centralization) and ask how you might productively combine the elements in new and interesting ways, while throwing away the rest of the existing models. Could an all-online model, for instance, keep costs low and yet be easily customized to a given context?
Under what conditions could a more intense version of one model actually generate one vital benefit of the other?
Imagine extending one model to capture a single important benefit from the opposing model. Perhaps you really value the culture-reinforcing effect of centralization; how might you extend the decentralized model so that it begins to reinforce something core to the company’s culture? Could a highly decentralized model, for instance, help create and reinforce a culture of individual autonomy?
How might the problem be broken apart in a new way so that each model could be applied in whole to distinct parts of the problem?
In this case, you explore how you might think differently about the problem itself, breaking it apart along an important fault line and applying each of the two opposing models to its distinct parts. For instance, you might break the training problem apart by task (could the development of training and the delivery of training be divided so as to get the best of both centralization of design and decentralization of delivery?) or by timing (is early-career training different from late-career training? Are new programs different from established ones?).
Teams are ready to move on from stage 3 when they have made a genuine effort to work through the three questions and have generated several possibilities that strike the group as having the potential to create more value than either of the original opposing models.
STAGE 4: ASSESS THE PROTOTYPES
The final stage of the integrative process is to test your prototype solutions in order to discard or improve them. The simplest methodology for testing prototypes is to share the ideas—as clearly and concretely as possible—with customers. For our learning example, the customers were employees, and the learning team actually brought employees into its workshop to give feedback on very rough prototypes of solutions shared via storyboards and role-playing.
Regardless of the specific testing method, in this stage your goal is to design tests that will help you see how well each possibility would work in practice and how effectively each possibility would solve your problem. In the training case, in addition to early cocreation and feedback sessions, you might build a pilot train-the-trainer program, model the costs of the different possibilities, and explore secondary research on learning outcomes under different delivery models.
At the end of the prototyping and testing process, you will look at the analysis that has been generated and use it to place a bet on one of the possibilities, moving from there toward full implementation. This is a moment of managerial judgment, in which your team will need to weigh the outcome of the tests, assess relative risks and probabilities, and make a choice about how to proceed. A team won’t know for certain that the chosen possibility will work just as anticipated, but the fourth stage is designed to help increase collective confidence and to make it more likely that a chosen possibility will be implemented. The goal, then, is to reach genuine and reasoned consensus.
THE PROCESS OF CHOICE
In sum, these are the four phases that make up the integrative thinking process: articulating opposing ways to solve a vexing problem; diving deeply into those opposing models to truly understand them; attempting to resolve the tension of the opposing models by creating new models that contain elements of the original alternatives but are superior to either one; and testing the potential new solutions to build confidence and enthusiasm for moving forward.
In the next four chapters, we delve into each of the stages of integrative thinking in more detail, sharing personal stories and examples from students, friends, and colleagues to illustrate what each stage can look like in practice. As you work your own way through this process, remember that it is intended to be a rule of thumb for integrative thinking rather than a simple, surefire recipe. But applied thoughtfully, this methodology gives you a fighting chance at solving challenging problems and creating great choices. Ultimately, the goal is to find what David Taylor, CEO of P&G, often calls “the third and better way”—a solution that lets you make a choice far superior to the ones you saw at the outset.