A THREE-DAY SEMINAR IN STRATEGIC THINKING
For those who are interested, I here provide some information on my course in strategic
thinking.
I define 4 stages of thought and action:
1
2
3
4
impulsive, naive, 'natural'
instrumental, expert, professional, technical
strategic
communicative
I associate impulsive thinking and action with someone whose chief concern is to be
him/herself, doesn't want to get involved in political game-playing and is wary of
manipulation. Judgements of people or companies are clear but one-sided. Players are either
great or not to be trusted, either good or bad.
Instrumental thinking, in my view, relates to thinking in categories ('the grocer', 'the market',
'the consumer', 'the wholesaler'), the use of the word 'therefore' and strongly convergent
thinking which moves towards rapid conclusions and solutions. Better to be fast than
thorough.
Strategic thinkers can think in hypotheses, are more like cats than dogs (put a dog by a burrow
and it'll start to dig; put a cat by the burrow and it'll take a step back and settle down to wait),
they think in terms of people and individual organizations which you can fax, supply, pester
or establish a good relationship with (Jack Welch, Du Pont, Dan Quayle).
Communicative thinkers focus primarily on relationships, are open, prepared to cooperate,
can allow win/win situations to arise and don't need to control. They can deal with
uncertainty, want to be a player, but want others to be able to play their game too.
In my opinion, the higher you get the more strategic and communicative skills you need to
apply.
THE STRATEGIC THINKING SEMINAR
The aim of this seminar is to allow people to reflect on their way of thinking and acting up to
now, and to give them a chance to practice strategic and communicative behaviour in a
protected environment. In other words, they can work on an update of their internal control
programs.
If that succeeds, they'll become better – and differently – acquainted with themselves, their
fellow participants, their business unit, their company and the world at large. 'Better' in the
sense of more effective: if someone is 'unreliable' then I'd better avoid them: if someone
'regularly presents me with surprises' (another way of saying they're unreliable) then I can still
talk to them.
STRUCTURE
Following an introduction dealing with the differences between instrumental and strategic
thinking, the subjectivity of cartographic maps and mental maps, I invite the participants to
make a drawing of the external markets in which their company or division operates
(customers, competitors, suppliers, intermediaries, local authorities, EEC, etc.). Then they
make a drawing of the internal market within their own company (works council, staff
departments, significant persons, locations, production, buying, commerce, corporate
relations, etc.).
The 'artist' must also assign a position to himself and his business unit within the drawing.
The drawings are first developed further among the participants, discussed critically and
modified, and then put on an overhead projector so that they can be dealt with by the entire
group.
The discussion focuses chiefly on the world view of the drawer, i.e. the participant in
question. Is he large and positioned top-left (dominant)? Small and bottom-right (weak in all
respects)? Does he draw isolated blocks or linked clusters? Which players are missing? Who
doesn't actually belong in the drawing? Does he draw groups of players or concrete actors
with a fax machine, an e-mail address and a past history?
Then the participant is asked how he wishes to influence the fields of force in the future: does
he want to win, to improve the atmosphere, to escape, to strike a blow, to help? All strategies
must eventually be translatable into concrete personal actions: 'what are you going to do with
whom, when and with what aim?'.
In order to put these explorations into perspective and to test their internal consistency, the
drawings are accompanied by six actor-analyses. Apart from providing information about the
actor, they reveal at least as much about the describer. (If I consider someone else to be 'rigid'
then I consider myself to be rather more flexible: if I regard someone as a 'ball and chain' then
I doubtless want to get rid of him; if I think someone is 'fantastic' then I'll probably start
copying him or make myself slavishly dependent on him). The governing hypothesis here is:
when you say something about somebody else then the same doesn't apply to you, or to a
lesser extent, or differently; in other words a definition is an intention.
After this the participants devise three scenarios, each of which consists of 15 action points.
Scenario I is about things which are necessary for you to retain your own position and that of
your company.
Scenario II is a reductionist scenario: get rid of something, stop doing something, or give up
the whole thing (often a disappointingly attractive option for the participant, his colleagues,
his boss and his family).
Scenario III is a castle in the air which assumes you have total freedom in all respects: money,
support, know-how, time and whatever.
This creative exercise results in 45 action points. I then ask for a maximum of 3 items to be
selected which satisfy the following two criteria:
1
I/we don't yet do this: it's not part of my/our natural repertoire
2
I think it would be worthwhile to try it out.
This selection is then given another shuffle by means of an exercise in unsolicited advice: take
one of your partner's action points and add a new point to it. The training is thus also an
exercise in giving and receiving constructive, critical feedback.
REFLECTION
It's a course about managing processes of mourning. In yourself, in others and also in the
trainer, who is always a visible player in the process with his own visions, sense of surprise,
emotions and world views.
It's a course about putting things in perspective, in a useful, businesslike manner. In order to
be able to reflect on your reflections at an increasingly high level. And despite this to retain
(or acquire) the ability to communicate.