Integrative Thinking In HBR

In reading my June 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review I came across an article that struck a chord. Titled “How Successful Leaders Think”, by Roger Martin, it was based on the premise that we can learn far more by learning how great leaders think, or thought, than by how they act, or acted.

Martin keys in on one common thread that ran through the bulk of the “great” leaders he interviewed: they “have the predisposition and the capacity to hold in their heads two opposing ideas at once.”

Most decision makers “seek simplicity along the way” to a decision and are thus “often forced to make unattractive trade-offs.” The leaders that Martin interviewed did not feel forced into such trade-offs. Rather, they carried forth two opposing ideas/solutions/models/etc. for as long as possible, they embraced the accompanying complexity, and they felt comfortable with their ability to handle said complexity.

Martin notes, “integrative thinkers don’t mind a messy problem. In fact, they welcome complexity, because that’s where the best answers come from.”

When faced with two opposing ideas, most decision makers attempt to quickly determine which idea is correct/best/ideal, and thus which is faulty. They may take the approach of challenging both ideas very early in the decision making process, attempting to poke holes in one or the other, and thus eliminate said idea from contention. This reduces complexity and the decision maker feels more at ease.

Martin boils it down to four stage decision making model and juxtaposes “conventional thinkers” and “integrative thinkers.”

Note: This table is quoted directly from the article.

Step 1 – Determining Salience
Conventional Thinkers – Focus only on obviously relevant features
Integrative Thinkers – Seek less obvious but potentially relevant factors

Step 2 – Analyzing Causality
Conventional Thinkers – Consider one-way, linear relationships between variables, in which more of A produces more of B
Integrative Thinkers – Consider multidirectional and nonlinear relationships among variables

Step 3 – Envisioning the Decision Architecture
Conventional Thinkers – Break problems into pieces and work on them separately or sequentially
Integrative Thinkers – See problems as a whole, examining how the parts fit together and how decisions affect one another

Step 4 – Achieving Resolution
Conventional Thinkers – Make either or choices, settle for best available options
Integrative Thinkers – Creatively resolve tensions among opposing ideas; generate innovative outcomes

Most notably, integrative thinkers do not make either or choices. They carry forth, deep into the decision making process, not only opposing ideas but a wealth of data as well. Ultimately, they seek a solution that “integrates” the best of all available options, whether they are opposing ideas or not.