Whatever Happened To Joined Up Thinking - Part 2

The title implies that joined up thinking used to be widespread but recently we've lost the skill.  Not necessarily true; maybe we never had it!  But even ancient Greek generals debated the unpredictably far reaching effects of ripples on a lake when you lobbed in a stone.

People who can foresee the unintended ought to get a more than fair hearing, but often the opposite is the case.  They get labelled as negative, or resistant to change, or not being team players.

Even the most reasoned arguments don't guarantee that the foresight will be listened to, let alone accepted.  By 2001 scientists at the University of New Orleans were already publishing papers on the risks of having built a city near the sea, protected by levees that cause the ground behind them to sink below sea-level, as it was no longer being topped up by soil deposits from the tidal waters.

In the 1930s, sociologist Robert K Merton listed five causes of 'unanticipated consequences'.  The first two were Ignorance and Error, but the fifth is the one I find most fascinating.  The fifth cause is the Self-Defeating Prophecy, in other words the fear of a foreseen consequence drives people to find solutions before the problems happen.  The prediction then becomes false because it itself changes history.  Think of warnings of the future depth of horse manure on the streets of London, made in the 19th century!

Incidentally, it was only sometime later that Merton turned his original phrase on its head and coined the more well-known expression, the Self-Fulfilling Prophesy.

Whilst unintended consequences can hinder progress for the common good, I believe the real criticism should be levelled at the scale of the 'unintentionality', which is sometimes vast.

Popularly known today as a 'lack of joined up thinking', the possession of Critical Strategic Foresight is far from universal.  As noted in an earlier post, it seems extremely thinly spread amongst politicians of all persuasions!  Maybe President Obama can break the mould.

Merton's third cause was 'imperious immediacy of interest', that is to say a vested interest coupled to a short-term action.  Here longer-term consequences are often deliberately ignored - totally different to the genuine ignorance of the first cause.  As an example, consider the enforced adoption of spreadsheets, where the user has to enter the formulae themselves.

If you are ignorant of the appropriate algorithms and their purpose, the spreadsheet will just help you to arrive at the wrong answer more rapidly.  The time spent performing manual additions and long multiplications might well have allowed greater insight into the problem, and so resulted in you arriving at the correct answer.

Many corporations lack the infrastructure to help gather Critical Strategic Foresight, or fail to use their infrastructure correctly.  Similarly individuals need the mental 'infrastructure' to consider these, "OK.  What if ...?" questions before getting their sleeves rolled up and starting the task.

Critical Strategic Foresight is unlikely to arrive conveniently, just when you're looking for it.  Murphy's law says it will be after strategies and tactical plans have been formulated and signed off!  Because the pressure is now off, and the understanding is a lot more complete, the mind can wander laterally and those, "Oh my goodness!" moments start to happen.

One answer is to create a list of testing questions by which individuals and organisations can challenge and judge new ideas and the resulting Critical Strategic Foresight.  These question may well be of the "If, then how?" variety, or with 'how' replaced by any of the other five ways of starting an open question.  Without such an infrastructure, someone who is Critical Strategic Foresight savvy will more likely be seen as a Luddite than as an innovator.

This was noted by Merton as the fourth cause of 'unanticipated consequences', the Basic Values; in other words the very culture within which change is being sought risks stifling that change, or else its implementation will destroy the culture.

So how can Critical Strategic Foresight be cultivated?  Both individuals and organisations can adopt creative thinking methods like negative brainstorming and devil's advocacy, based on seeking out counter arguments and not shying away from, "What could go wrong if ...?" questions.  Such a culture implies that inconvenient and challenging questions will be welcomed at any time, and will be given fair consideration; an important thought when, as was noted earlier, Critical Strategic Foresight doesn't always arrive just when you ask for it.  The understanding needed for Critical Strategic Foresight to flourish can take time and experience.

New strategies and technologies can usually be explained in broad terms when required, but unintended consequences often arise from the detail.  Therefore strategies should be defined in detail, prior to their implementation, and the detail not left to be created as the project goes along.  Views of consequential outcomes should be sought from those with an in-depth understanding and years of experience - the sort of 'nit-picking Luddites' who actually welcome progress, but not change for change's sake.

Calling all UK-based businesses.  Discover how to get your FREE review of your Sales and Marketing activities.