RM:OM:Chapter #8: A wealth of experiences - Using past, inventing the future

This post is final chapter 8 of the book 'The Opposable Mind' written by Roger Martin. You can read the high level review of the book in  THIS POST. Please read it before you read this post.

Read Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4 , Chapter 5 , Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of the book. 

The final chapter in your journey to become integrative thinker is your experience. It takes inputs from your stance and tools. At the same time, your experience also modifies your stance and tools.

Experience generates both mastery and originality. Mastery requires repeated experience in a particular domain. Mastery comes through structured repetition of a consistent type of experience. The person should have a structured method of observing and reflecting on his experience.

An integrative think also need originality - finding a new solution to a problem. Originality demands a willingness to experiment, spontaneity in response to a novel situation and openness to try something unplanned. It is a process of trial and error and iterative prototyping.

The best integrative thinkers combine mastery with originality. Our natural tendency favour mastery over originality. Mastery without originality becomes repetition. Such thinking will tend to miss salience and causal relationship.

On the other hand, originality without mastery becomes flaky. Master requires to distinguish  between salient and unrelated features , to understand what causal relationships are in play and how to analyze a complex problem.

At its core, integrative thinking combines mastery with originality. Without mastery, there will not be useful salience, causality and architecture. Without originality there will be no creative resolution. Without creative resolution there will not be enhancement of mastery. When mastery stagnates, so does originality.

RM:OM:Chapter #7: How Integrative Thinkers connect the dots - A leap of mind

This post is chapter 7 of the book 'The Opposable Mind' written by Roger Martin. You can read the high level review of the book in  THIS POST. Please read it before you read this post.

Read Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4 , Chapter 5  and Chapter 6 of the book. 

This penultimate chapter of the book focuses on the tools that the integrative thinkers use. The tools are:

• Generative Reasoning
• Causal Modelling
• Assertive Inquiry

Generative Reasoning inquires into what might be rather than what is. It helps build a sturdy framework for creative resolution. Generative reasoning is the opposite of declarative reasoning, which is a cognitive tool to determine the truth / falsity of a given proposition.

Declarative reasoning works through deductive and inductive logic. Deductive logic works by establishing a framework and then applying that framework to solve a problem. for example, mammals are animals with warm blood and procreate via live birth. So all animals that meet these two criteria are mammals.

Inductive logic infers general rule from empirical observations and draws conclusion on what is and what isn't true. When we see the sun rising from the east every day, we conclude that Sun always rise in the east.

Both the above do not account for the idea of invention - the idea of what could be. Generative reasoning uses a third form of logic called abductive logic. Since abductive logic generates a totally new model, it is all called  generative reasoning. Integrative thinkers consider generative thinking as both conceptually legitimate and practical. Generative reasoning facilitates trial and error.

Causal modelling is the second tool of integrative thinkers. Sophisticated causal modelling is a crucial underpinning for causality and architecture. As discussed previously in the causality step, the thinker must consider non-linear and multi-directional causal links between subject variables.

We are natural model builders. many a time we are not even aware that we are using models. When it comes to causal modelling, two forms of causation are important. First is the material causation, which says that under certain circumstances X causes Y to happen.

The second form of causation, known as teleological causation, connect the way things are currently to the way they should be, also called the desired state. For a causal modeller, material and teleological causation connect the way things are to their desired end state.

How do we know that the causal model that we designed is robust enough? A technique known as system dynamics (a theory of mapping the activity of complex systems) holds that the results of our decisions are so often disappointed because either,

• We overlooked important causal relationships, or,
• We misread causal relationship usually by assuming them to be linear and unidirectional.

The primary focus of system dynamics is one sort of causal relationship. Multi-directional feedback loop.

One great tool for developing generative thinking is by using 'Radical Metaphors'. One dices a metaphor to describe the problem and builds a model around that metaphor. Metaphor tools help integrative thinkers in two ways. One, it helps thinkers conceive of the situation at hand in a way that is conducive to creating a new model.

Radical metaphors also help with keeping a coherent whole in mind while honing individual parts.

Assertive inquiry is the third tool for the integrative thinker. It is used to explore opposing models. Assertive inquiry helps unearth more salience and more unperceived causal relationships. Assertive inquiry involves a sincere search for other views and tries to fill gaps in understanding. It seeks a common ground between conflicting models.

Assertive inquiry promotes generative reasoning and causal modelling. It enables generative reasoning by breaking down conflicting models into pieces that can be reconciled into something better than either of the conflicting models. It also produces more robust causal modelling by enlisting more minds to explore and map the material and teleological connections that under-grid conflicting models

RM:OM:Chapter6: The construction project: Imagining Reality

This post is chapter 6 of the book 'The Opposable Mind' written by Roger Martin. You can read the high level review of the book in  THIS POST. Please read it before you read this post.

Read Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 of the book. 

The stances of integrative thinkers have six common features. These concerns the world around them and their role in it..

One, they believe that whatever models existing at present do not represent reality. They are simply the best or only constructions yet made.

Two, they believe that conflicting models, styles and approaches to problem are to be leveraged, not feared.

Three, better models exist that are yet to be seen.

Four, not only that better models exist, by that they are capable of bringing that model from abstract  hypothesis to concrete reality.

Five, they are comfortable wading into the complexity to ferret out a new and better model, confident that they will emerge on the other side with a resolution they seek.

Six, they give themselves time to create a better model.

Integrative thinking is an inherently optimistic stance. They understand that the world imposes constraints on them, but they share a belief that with hard thinking and patience they can find a better outcome than the unsatisfying ones they are presented with. Integrative thinkers refuse to accept trade offs. They do not believe in 'either or'. They are more comfortable with 'and'.

The question is 'how do you cultivate a new stance?'. The answer lies in how you develop the six thinking patterns mentioned below.

One, existing models do not represent reality.

Our 'factory setting' causes us to confuse our perceptions, which are subjective constructions, with objective reality. So the first step in developing better thinking habit is to distinguish between them. The key points are two. One, anything that we consider real is a model of reality and two, that model is probably imperfect in some important aspects.

Two, opposing models are to be leveraged, not feared.

It is very important to understand that all models reflect reality from a particular angle. Hence it is possible to assemble a fuller, probably not complete, model of reality by incorporating a variety of other models. Salient data once overlooked, casual patterns once unnoticed, architectural possibilities once went unexploited, all begin to converge.

Opposing models are the richest source of new insight to a problem. The most creative, productive stance is the one that see opposing models as learning opportunities.

Three, better models exist that are not yet seen.

In this section the author bring in two conceptual ideas.These approaches help in evaluating theories of how the world works. The two approaches are 'Contended Model Defense' (CMD) and 'Optimistic Model Seeking' (OMS). In CMD we adopt a theory and then seek to support and defend it. As we accumulate data in support of the theory we have adopted, we become more certain of our theory and move toward achieving our goal certainty.

The problem with CMD is that the defender tend to ignore the non-confirming data. Also, when we go into the defense mode, we short-circuit any attempt to seek a more accurate model. Within the CMD framework, an alternative or clashing model is a problem to be eliminated. Alternative models pose a threat to the veracity of the existing model and must be disbelieved, distorted and disproved.

As against the CMD, the OMS model doesn't believe that there is a right answer, just the best answer available now. The presumption is that all models are fallible but doesn't mean that the current model should be rejected. For OMS, the resting state is not certainty. They are always testing their model against the best available data. Their goal is a refutation of their current beliefs, because refutation represents not failure but an advance. Stance is optimistic since the assumptions that future models will be better than the current model. Optimistic model seekers are discomfited by the presence of a single model.

One can become an OMS by close examination of their personal beliefs and determine how and why they maintain those beliefs. Typically we maintain our beliefs by engaging in CMD. Fore example we resort to authority to justify our beliefs. Logical circularity is another favorite strategy for CMD. An example of Logical circularity is 'I know I treated him fairly because I am a fair person'.

Four, I am capable of finding a better model.

This is the first of the three statements concerning self. To get into this thinking mode, one need to get regular experiences. It is not only that one get experiences, it is important that one thinks  reflects about their experiences. Through thinking one learns to analyze the salient and causal relationships underlying these experiences.

To learn from our experience, we must be explicit in advance about the thought process preceding the decision. If wee have thought through the decision beforehand, from analysis of consequences, one can learn from these experiences.

Five, I can wade through and get through the necessary complexity

From the outcomes, you can reflect on the actions that generated the outcomes. From the actions you have to go back and reflect on the thinking that led to these actions. Systematically reflecting on the way you think is a powerful way to change your thinking.

Six, I give myself time to create a better model.

An integrative thinker knows the value of patience. It is worth the mental effort to patiently wait for a creative solution to emerge.

RM:OM:Chapter5: Mapping the mind: How thought circulates.

This post is chapter 5 of the book 'The Opposable Mind' written by Roger Martin. You can read the high level review of the book in  THIS POST. Please read it before you read this post.

Read Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of the book. 

The chapter starts off with the quote from Confucius, 'By three methods we may learn wisdom. First by reflection which is the noblest, Second by imitation and third by experience which is the bitterest.

The question is how do you build your integrative thinking capacity. In this chapter, the author builds a framework for building the integrative thinking. The framework for building your personal knowledge system consists of three parts, Stance, Tools and Experiences.

Stance is your most broad-based knowledge domain in which you define who you are in your world and what you are trying to accomplish in it. Stance is how you see the world around you, but it is also how you see yourself in the world. Stance has both individual unique elements and shared cultural and community aspects. Many a time, we tend to take our stance for granted. It is 'who we are'. The problem is that our view of who we are governs our assumptions about 'way things are'. In other words we tend to mistake the model of reality as reality itself. Stance guides us in making sense of world around us and taking action based on that sense making.

You use tools to organize your thinking and understand your world. Stance guides the tools that you choose to accumulate. Tools range from formal theories to established processes to rules of thumb. They help to recognize and categorize problems.

Experiences for your most practical and useful knowledge. the experience that you acquire are the product of your stance and tools, which guide you to some experience and not to others.

Experience enables us to hone our sensitivities and skills. Sensitivity is the capacity to make distinction between conditions that are similar but not exactly the same. Skill is the capacity to carry out an activity so as to consistently produce the same result. Skills and sensitivities tend to grow and deepen in concert.

Personal knowledge works as a system. Stance guide tools acquisition, which in turn guides experience accumulation. There is a circular relationship between these three. Experience may inform you to acquire new tools. Through the use of these new tools, we add depth and clarity to our stance.

The diagram below shows the interrelationship between stance, tools and experience.

Interrelationship between Stance, Tools and Experience

Beneficial or detrimental spirals

Personal knowledge systems are highly path dependent. When a person starts in a given direction, that direction is likely to be reinforced and amplified, not diminished or altered. This can either beneficial or detrimental.. at their best ,the three elements of personal knowledge system will reinforce each other to produce an ever increasing capacity for integrative thinking.

One the flip side, they can trap an intelligent person to a world where problems seem insurmountable. A narrow or limited stance will lead to acquisition of limited tools and limiting experiences. These then feeds back into the acquisition of even more limiting experiences and even narrower stance.

The spirals work powerfully in either direction. The good news? Neither spiral is pre-ordained. Your personal knowledge system is under your control. when you change your stance, you can change the tools and experiences and thereby broaden your integrative thinking capacity.

RM:OM:Chapter4: Dancing through complexity.

This post is chapter 4 of the book 'The Opposable Mind' written by Roger Martin. You can read the high level review of the book in  THIS POST. Please read it before you read this post.

Read Chapter 1, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of the book. 

The full title of this chapter is 'Dancing through complexity: Shaping resolution by resisting simplification'.

Simplification and specialization are the enemies of integrative thinking. Human beings have a tendency to move towards simplification and specialization. Simplification is based on 80-20 principle where 20% of effort van produce 8% or result. Organizations decide that spending 80% of effort to get additional 20% is not worth it.

While simplification can be comforting, it impairs every step of integrative thinking process. It encourages us to edit out salient features rather than consider the question of salience more broadly. A simplification makes us favour linear, unidirectional, causal relationships even if reality is more complex and multi-directional. It also encourages us to construct a limited model of the problem before us.

Specialization is another variant of simplification. It forces us to focus in significant detail on a very small aspect of the broader picture. Specialization is inimical to integrative thinking because it undermines productive architecture. It encourages the sequential or parallel resolution discrete parts of a business problem

Integrative thinkers avoid both simplification and specialization.

I loved the example of how Tim Brown of IDEO helped AMTRAK design their offerings. AMTRAK wanted to compete with airlines. AMTRAK asked IDEO to design the interiors. Brown felt that AMTRAK, by focusing on interiors, was missing the bigger picture. Brown felt that AMTRAK should focus on the entire AMTRAK experience.

Brown and his team analyzed an entire train trip and found that it involved 10 distinct steps. They were, Learning, Planning, Starting, Entering, Ticketing, Waiting, Boarding, Riding, Arriving and Continuing. The interiors of the train was relevant to only one step of the train journey, vis, riding. 

Instead of just simplifying and designing the interiors, Brown and team at IDEO waded into the complexity and designed an integrated solution.

RM:OM:Chapter3: Reality, Resistance and Resolution

This post is chapter 3 of the book 'The Opposable Mind' written by Roger Martin. You can read the high level review of the book in  THIS POST. Please read it before you read this post.

Read Chapter 1,and Chapter 2 of the book.The full title of this chapter is Reality, Resistance and Resolution: How integrative thinkers keep their option open.

If integrative thinking was such a good idea, why doesn't people use it all the time? One reason is what is known as 'factory setting' or our mind. It has a tendency to ensure that ore models of reality are reality itself. In other words the think that what we think is right.

Why do we do so? We do so because of our tendency to modify the information that we receive into some kind of meaningful narrative. In doing so, we filter out much of the data that comes to us. In this process, there is no guarantee that we won't filter out valuable data in our quest to compile a coherent narrative.

Integrative thinkers have the ability to distinguish model from reality. The integrative thinkers has the ability to distinguish between reality and model that purport to reflect reality. In doing so, they are free to hold up the models up to analysis and scrutiny without needing to refute one from another. This helps them to explore the tensions between opposing models and gather clues to a better model. The message the they take away when faced with unpleasant choices is not 'Choose Now', but 'Think Harder'.

RM:OM:Chapter2: No Stomach for the second best.

This post is chapter 2 of the book 'The Opposable Mind' written by Roger Martin. You can read the high level review of the book in  THIS POST. Please read it before you read this post.

Read Chapter 1 of the book.

Chapter 2 is titled 'No stomach for the second best. How integration thinkers move beyond trade offs'.

While making a decision human being considers four important aspects.

One, what are the factors that are relevant to my decision? This aspect is called Salience

Two, what are the interrelationships between these factors / features? How do the factors influence each other. This aspect is called Causality

Three, how do I structure my activities to achieve what I want? This is called Architecture

Four, was the outcome satisfactory? What is the outcome that I am going to get? This is the Resolution

When decisions get more complex, we tend to get confused and mixed up in any one of the above four steps. For example, we might miss some key features of a decision. Martin talks about a couple who have a bunch of beer drinking, raucous truck drivers for company. In their quest for a low priced vacation, they missed this important factor (vacation companions) which was relevant to their decision.

Martin call this attribute of decision making, ie having multiple relevant features as 'Salience' of the decision. Salience can be identified by the sentence 'I wish I had thought about it sooner'.

'Causality is the term used to show the interrelationships between salient features. We prepare a 'Causal Map' in our minds.

The next step is to identify the sequence of activities to be followed. Author calls this the 'Architecture' of the decision. We identify various activities to be performed and sequence them. Sometimes we break the activities into groups and assign different people with responsibilities for different groups. While doing so we might miss out on the integration aspect of the architecture.

Finally, based on the salient features, identified causality between them and the selected architecture you have a decision outcome or 'Resolution'.. Based on the different combination of any of the above, there are different resolutions.

Decision Making Process

The question is, what differentiates integrative thinkers from conventional thinkers?

One, wider salience: Integrative thinkers identify more salient features. They take a broader view of what is salient.

Two, complex causality: Integrative thinkers do not flinch from considering multi-directional and non-linear causal relationships.

Three, big picture architecture: Integrative thinkers d not break a problem into independent pieces and work on each piece separately. They keep the entire problem in mind while working on its undivided parts.

Four, search for a creative solution: Integrative thinkers search for creative resolution of tensions rather than accepting unpleasant trade offs. They are comfortable with the delays, generating option at the eleventh hour etc. They are prepared to wait in their quest for the best solution.

The diagram below summarizes the differences between conventional thinking and integrative thinking for each of the decision making elements.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL THINKING AND INTERACTIVE THINKING

RM:OM:Chapter1: Choices, Conflicts and the Creative Spark.

This post is chapter 1 of the book 'The Opposable Mind' written by Roger Martin. You can read the high level review of the book in  THIS POST. Please read it before you read this post. 

In business, we often look at decisions as series of either - or propositions or trade offs. However, exceptional leaders have the predisposition and ability to hold two diametrically opposite ideas in their heads and they are able to produce a synthesis that is superior to either of the opposing ideas. Roger Martin calls this 'Integrative Thinking'.

To develop integrative thinking, the author looks for a metaphor which can provide insight into the thinking process of integrative leaders. He lands upon the concept of 'opposable thumb'. Human beings are the only creature in the earth with the  capacity to put tension between the thumb and other fingers. By systematically developing their ability to use the opposable thumb, human beings are able to do things that no other creature can do, like writing, for example.

Roger Martin calls the ability of people to keep two opposing ideas in their minds as the 'Opposable Thumb'.

Book Review: The Opposable Mind: Author: Roger Martin

The complete name of the book is 'The Opposable Mind: Winning through integrative thinking': Author: Roger Martin.

Much of the progress achieved by human beings is attributed to the 'opposable thumb', the fact that human beings are the only animals whose thumbs works opposite to the other four fingers, helping us to sew, hold and grip things.

Roger Martin, in his book 'Opposable Mind', proposes that the highly successful leaders are able to keep two opposing ideas in their minds, without any emotional stress, and are able to integrate these ideas to form an integrated idea, which is far more superior to either of the opposing ideas.

In this book, we meet many successful leaders, P&G CEO A G Lafley, Bob Young of Red Hat, Tim Brown of IDEO, Isadore Sharp of Four Seasons Hotel, Pierce Handling of Toranto Film Festival and Moses Znaimer of City TV.

Many of the iconic Indian CEOs are referenced here. These include FC Kohli and Rama Dorai of TCS, Nandan Nilekeni of Infosys, KV Kamath and ironically (in hindsight), Ramalinga Raju of Satyam.

With this introduction let us dive down into the book. 

In Chapter 1, Roger Martin eases the reader to the concept of opposable mind through a series of real life examples. Here the concept is explained, where some leaders are able to hold two opposing view points in their minds without the associated emotional stress. The key message is that thinking is equally, if not more, important that the execution - a point made by Steven Covey in his book 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.

Chapter 2 dwells on the structure of integrative thinking. Martin breaks the integrative thinking process into its four constituent parts vis Salience, Causality, Architecture and Resolution.

In chapter 3, author explains, through various examples, that integrative thinkers have the ability to distinguish models from reality. This ability is critical for driving through the constituent parts to a creative resolution.

Next chapter, chapter 4, explains that the twin forces of simplification and specialization discourage integrative thinking and goes on to suggest how these forces can be countered.

The reader will find the next four chapters to be interesting and useful. From chapter 5 through 8, the author discusses the ways in which one can cultivate the habit of integrative thinking.

Chapter 5 introduces the framework for developing integrative thinking capability. This framework has three components, Stance (How you see the world and your place in it), tools that you acquire based on your stance above and finally experiences that you undergo based on your tools and stance. The main point to note is the 360 degree interaction between Stance, Tools and Experiences.The interaction between these components makes a fascinating read.

Chapters 6, 7 and 8 discus each of these components in detail. Chapter 6 discusses the Stance of an integrative thinker, how they view world around them and their perception of their ability to influence that world. Author delineates 6 aspects that they consider when deciding on their world view. Three are related to the external world and three are related to how the integrative thinkers view themselves as a player in this world.

Chapter 7 discusses the tools that an integrative thinker uses when evaluating information. There are three tools that they use. They are Generative Reasoning, Causal Reality and Assertive Inquiry. These tools are used to determine the linkage between material connection and teleological connections. Material connection relate to the 'as is' relation between two objects and teleological connection relate to how that relation 'should be'.

Chapter 8 talks about the role of experiences for an integrative thinker. Two aspects are discussed. One is mastery, a detailed knowledge of something specific and the other is Originality, creative understanding of new subject. Integrative thinker gives equal importance to both of them and uses a virtuous circle to move from originality to mastery which expose him to new areas and originality.

In summary, the personal knowledge system of an Integrative Thinker is depicted in the diagram below.

PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM OF AN INTEGRATIVE THINKER

This is a very insightful book and explains the thinking process through simple scientific explanations The concepts are very easy to put in practice. The most important takeaway in the book is the 360 degree interrelationship between Stance, Tools and Experience. By working on any one of these one can change all the three components and thereby future.