Last time we referred to two recent major global events where flabby strategic thinking had partly contributed to the situation that the world now finds itself in. So how can we start to address the problems of sloppy strategic thinking in individuals and teams? We believe that there are two key questions that you need to address. Firstly, the implicit question of “How do people think?” Not how do they feel, or how do others perceive them, or how operationally capable they are, but how DO they think? Secondly and more directly:  “What IS good strategic thinking?” Or at the very least:  “What does your organisation or team regard as good strategic thinking?”

Can you identify the core strengths of strategic thinking and develop them, while negating the kind of flabby thinking that is less than helpful when addressing strategic issues? We believe that you can.

In the previous article, we talked about the set of thinking skills and tools that great leaders use to win consistently. We also suggested that you and your clients can start to remove flabby thinking by developing Cognitive Fitness. Using Thinking Styles to measure individual and team thinking preferences helps you to create a personal and team intervention programme for your client based on the strengths and weaknesses of their cognitive profiles.

The next question is, therefore: “Which of these 26 are the most useful for developing ‘good’ strategic thinking?” In fact, all of these attributes have some relevance to strategic thinking (as opposed to tactical, analytical or creative thinking). But, as in all things, some are much more relevant than others. 

For example, balancing an individual’s frame of reference between the External and the Internal is important, as are preferences for challenge, complexity and difference.

Totally Internally referenced people can’t listen to any form of counsel from other team members whereas very Externally referenced individuals are so busy seeking outside opinion, they never actually get anything done.  Developing a balance allows individuals to learn from others’ experiences and then be able to make a decision and stick to it, sometimes in the face of strong opposition. 

A preference for Difference thinking is very important for looking for different ways to achieve objectives.  A preference for Complexity means that individuals are able to understand and indeed actively enjoy the complex systems, processes and behaviours that affect today’s business world and which need to be taken into account when undertaking strategic thinking. Finally, a preference for Challenging thinking means that an individual is likely to enjoy having to overcome obstacles as part of the strategic thinking process. 

However, there are some styles that are likely to work against the strategic thinking process.   One of the most fascinating is the potentially paralysing effect of a high preference for Options thinking. Clearly, identifying and analysing strategic options is potentially very helpful and can create new insights, but deriving and analysing too many options can lead to paralysis in decision-making brought about by information and opportunity overload.

Detailed thinking is the opposite of strategic thinking; any preference for considering the detail needs to be put aside when you are considering strategic issues. Sometimes, Logical thinkers can find themselves locked into linear and sequential ways of thinking, which creates the very box that they need to step out of in order to think strategically. 

It is of course well beyond the scope of this article to go into the fine detail of the analysis and recommendation process of Thinking Styles, but having identified some of the attributes of both good and flabby strategic thinking, it becomes obvious how Thinking Styles can be used to develop more effective strategic thinking within individuals and top teams.

Having measured them and improved them, in line with the organisation’s or the broader world’s expectations, we are creating people who think well; whose mind is on the path to achieving the state we call Cognitive Fitness.