Integrative thinkers don’t approach the game any differently, but they play on a larger field.
According to Roger Martin, each of us when trying to think a problem through, even something as simple as what to have for dinner, must determine what is important to us, what we need to get done before we can do something else, and at what level we start making decisions before we reach the point of closure.
What features are important? – Salience
More salient thinkers make for a messier problem. But integrative thinkers don’t mind the mess.
Some things are obviously important, such as how much food we want to eat and how much money we have to spend. Others are less so, such as whether our table has a draft coming in on it and if there will be bread or pasta to accompany the main dish. Although, if you are on a low-carb diet, that last might be more important to you.
An integrative thinker might add some other features in, such as the ambience and purpose – are we trying to give a certain impression to those dining with us? What else have they been doing all day and what will they be doing after? Do we know tomorrow’s menu?
How do you decide what depends on what? – Causality
Integrative thinkers don’t flinch from considering multidirectional and nonlinear causal relationships.
Some relationships are obvious. If you are fixing dinner at home, but don’t have time to go to the store, then your dinner choice depends on what ingredients you have in your refridgerator and pantry.
Some relationships are more subtle or could have delayed reactions, such as choosing to eat a low-fat dinner to reduce your weight, or realizing that the person dining with you will think of his mother when he eats lasagna.
What is the structure and order? – Architecture
Integrative thinkers don’t break a problem into independent pieces and work on each piece separately.
Many people make decisions sequentially. First you decide if you’re going to go out or stay in for dinner, then you decide what restaurant, and so forth. Or perhaps you go backwards in the chain, but you are eliminating options as you go. This process does not allow for understanding interrelationships.
How will I know when I’m done? – Resolution
The integrative thinker will aways seach for creative resolution of tensions, rather than accept unpleasant trade-offs.
What does it mean for the original goal to be met? Does it mean you pick an option and carry it out, or does it mean you realize that you don’t need to decide between eating out and fixing dinner because there’s Chinese take-out down that street and the nifty new place that helps you learn to do your own gourmet cooking in a fine dining atmosphere down the other street?
Selecting what to eat for dinner is a simple example, because most of the options and interrelationships are known to us. When the issue is more complex, often poorly defined and not easily understood, then the difference between using integrative thinking and the more usual methods is going to shine through, such as in some of the business cases included in The Opposable Mind
Coming up next are ways to translate this explanation into actions.
This post is the second in a series that will cover the major topics of The Opposable Mind
- Book Review: The Opposable Mind by Roger Martin
- How Integrative Thinkers Think Things Through
- 6 Foundation Beliefs of an Opposable Mind
- 3 Techniques for Moving Beyond Either/Or Thinking
- Experiences Enhance the Opposable Mind
- Integrative Thinking Beyond The Opposable Mind
For more detail on the ideas in this post, read Chapter 2, which introduces them using a different easy to follow example and shows them in action in Isadore Sharp’s founding of the Four Seasons Hotels, and Chapter 3 which talks about how three different executives were able to hold multiple perspectives in their minds at the same time and still function.
