Search results

The authors translate their the concept of integrative thinking into a repeatable methodology, supported by a set of tools for thinking through difficult or “wicked“ problems, a process that offers a better chance of rejecting false choices and of finding a way through to an innovative alternative.

The authors divide their process into four phases. A case example illustrates each phase.

The four phases that make up the integrative thinking 10;process: articulating opposing ways to solve a vexing problem; analyzing those opposing models to truly understand them; attempting to resolve the antithetical approaches 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.

Additional examples and detailed guidance is provided in the authors new book “Creating Great Choices: A Leader’s Guide to Integrative Thinking,” (Harvard Business School Press, 2017).

Several corporate examples of “wicked” problems to which integrative thinking might be applied are: After a merger, the combined sales organization is riven by dissension between proponents of two opposite approaches – one using direct sales and the other channel partners. The CEO of a retail bank struggling to manage the conflicting goals of increasing efficiency and improving customer service.

Applied thoughtfully, this new and tested methodology gives leaders at all levels a fighting chance at solving challenging problems and creating breakthrough choices.

Roger L. Martin, one of the most respected strategists, is questioned by veteran S&L interviewer Brian Leavy. The questions range from the how and why of integrative thinking methodology to academic arguments over resource-based view of strategy.

Martin, co-author with Jennifer Riel of the new book Creating Great Choices, shares the insights they have developed while learning how to guide executives through integrative thinking methodolgy.

The necessary raw materials for an integrative solution are two opposing models. By exposing your model to other models through interaction, together you can utilize pieces of those models to generate a new one.

We see the value of prototyping solutions – expecting to be only partially right with the first prototype and learning a lot from putting the ideas into action, seeing what works and what doesn’t, and improving iteratively.

Martin’s guide to break though thinking shares the insights he has learned from working with brilliant CEOs and others who have sought to find a better solution to a dilemma or paradox than the unsatisfactory solutions confronting them.

The author argues that the model for the management of the U.S. economy and businesses – one that assumes that they can be run like machines –is producing outcomes that neither were anticipated nor are desired.

The model of a perfectible machine needs to be supplanted by a model of a complex adaptive system in order to turnaround the performance of the economy and its companies.

In businesses, unrestrained pursuit of efficiency has had an unexpected and unintended effect.

One important way to design for complexity is to adopt multiple internally contradictory proxies for success.

Offers a critical insight for corporate leaders: The U.S. economy is not a perfectible machine: it is a complex adaptive system. Companies are not perfectible machines: they are complex adaptive systems. To produce better outcomes, leaders need to design for each element – complexity, adaptability and systemic nature.

This paper examines how evidence based management (EBM) can help managers build more flexible organizations. In the context of this article, we define the need to build for this capacity around the challenge of “ambidexterity”, or the need for companies to continue operations while also allowing for innovation. We present a framework to help managers create strategies that help them build ambidexterity in their organizations, whether they operate in highly regulated, compliance driven or un-regulated, non-compliance climates.

This paper identifies four organizational design strategies each of which represents a different leadership and organization consideration that may focus on how evidence based management practices are linked to competency building (i.e., exploitation), the need innovation, or an equal balance between the two (i.e., ambidexterity).

Our findings reveal that an organization’s use of data given these four strategic orientations reflect different uses of data (verifiability and codification concerns) and ways of embedding compliance and ambidexterity (exploitation vs. exploration) considerations.

These four strategies help managers expose biases in their current decision-making practices, and how they subsequently may affect lifecycle, change management, and data practice in ambidexterity development.

While EBM acknowledges the importance of utilizing evidence, it remains limited toward understanding how it might be used to build for ambidexterity in organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to explore credibility, as an alternative to charisma, as an important attribute of transformational and authentic leadership. 10;

This is a conceptual paper. From leadership literature, we discuss transformational leadership, authentic leadership, charisma, and credibility. The literature on leadership and credibility is limited, yet we provide relevant examples.

The authors conclude that credibility, rather than charisma, provides a more accessible and ethical framework to capture the essence of transformational and authentic leadership. Yet, charisma may enhance leadership. Practical recommendations are provided related to charisma and credibility.

Practical recommendations are given to help leaders think about charisma differently and consider credibility as a core attribute to embrace in leading others. 10; 10;

The literature on credibility and leadership is limited, but this topic is frequently discussed in business, politics, religion, media, etc.