In our March session of the Tech Leaders Salon, we discussed Roger L. Martin’s A New Way to Think. I tend to oscillate between two extreme takes when it comes to adopting a philosophical mindset, questioning assumptions, or attempting change in a professional setting.
Of course, at an individual and personal level, or even in small groups, it’s easier to ask more difficult questions, engage in self-reflection, and combine a healthy dose of skepticism, examination, and perspective-shifting.
The Organizational Challenge
At an organizational or corporate level, I struggle to see how the above may apply. But as we discussed, to effect some change in the world, one has to look within first, though Marc Andreessen would probably not like this.
(A side note: during our discussion, we also touched upon the “explore vs. exploit” dynamic, inspired by Rory Sutherland. Laksh Raghavan mentions this in his book Mistakes of Mainstream Management as well.)
It’s easy to default to cynicism and skepticism, as I continuously find myself doing, arguing that in the corporate world, adopting alternative models wouldn’t work. In fact, that very stance may prove Roger L. Martin right. Namely, we sometimes take the status quo for granted and assume that because this is how things were done, it should continue to be done.
Breaking the Patterns
If managers, executives, or teams are to explore new ways to think and try out new frameworks, models, or ideas, then books such as Martin’s provide a good starting point to examine some of these alternatives. This exploration can act as a springboard for further learning, combined with practical experimentation based on experiences, the challenges faced, and the context in which they operate.
Martin himself highlights this at the end of the book. The goal of the book as an exercise is not so much to push us to adopt and apply the frameworks mechanically, but to cultivate the habit of becoming aware of the patterns and models we use, and of questioning them.
The Role of Context
Context seems to be a central theme too. It’s important to understand the nature of the conditions, constraints, and complexity we find ourselves in. We can oscillate between two extremes here as well:
- The young startup that’s still trying to launch a successful product.
- The big corporation that has been in the market for over a decade and has a well-established brand, departments, and several layers of abstraction and bureaucracy.
In between the two extremes is a spectrum with a wide variety of combinations. Understanding the context may be a good first step. However, the general questions in a business context remain the same: questions about the product, strategy, innovation, risk, and navigating uncertainty.
Conclusion: Reflection vs. Rumination
My main takeaway from the session is that conversations of this type, when accompanied by experience, reflection, and different vantage points, may help give us more ideas to try out new things and expose us to different angles to tackle similar problems. The caveat would be to not get too sucked into abstract rumination (Andreessen would probably like this bit) or an extreme case of “doing” just for its own sake.
With that, I want to end with an anecdote. Just yesterday someone left this comment on LinkedIn regarding our upcoming April discussion of Barry O’Reilly’s book The Architect’s Paradox:
“Ok, but companies couldn’t care less about all of that. They care about ROI. How do you propose we can produce measurable and consistent ROI with EA? Anything in an enterprise that is not producing ROI is producing drag. ‘Decipher me, or I’ll devour you’, otherwise, you’ll end up in that box of oblivion.”
So, in what way is philosophy helpful if all companies care about is ROI? I’ll leave you with Barry’s reply:
“Producing drag is exactly what EA does. This is because the entire edifice is based on a flawed philosophical foundation. EA’s should read this book. The first thing they should do after that is question why they’ve allowed impossible-to-measure neoliberal navel-gazing discourse about ROI to distract them from their job of building systems.”