Figure 3-1. The four pillars of strategic thinking.

      Pillar III – Identify and organize resources. Columbus combined his know-how and insight with the tangible assets provided by the Spanish Crown: ships, crew, provisions, and goods for trading. He deliberately configured those assets to maximize success.

      The game of chess is often used as the symbol for strategy. The movement of chess pieces is a Pillar III activity, where the strategist configures chess pieces (the strategic resources) to respond to issues and create issues for the opponent. For organizations, the strategic resources include capabilities, financial assets, intellectual property, and know-how. The player wins or loses the match (Pillar IV) based on the positioning and movement of the pieces (Pillar III) according to the mental approach (Pillar II) of the player (Pillar I).

      Any move of a chess piece is deliberate. This principle is an essential tool for the strategic-thinking narrative in that one can infer reasons for a past choice by asking, Why was this resource used this way? Similarly, in considering a prospective configuration of resources, the why question can provide focus and logic for strategy.

      Pillar II – Using cognition. Columbus’s curiosity and other habits of mind are consistent with the concept of higher-level thinking. It’s the intelligence of recognizing things, remembering things, imagining things, and applying reasoning. Reasoning includes activities such as analysis, synthesis, and imagination. In strategic thinking, cognition is explicitly the mechanism that perceives weak signals, makes sense of those signals, and makes decisions.

      We all like to believe that we’re in control of our decisions and behaviors. Science has shown that much of the mind’s cognition is in the subconscious. The argument includes an observation that the human brain evolved over thousands of years in a harsh environment much different from that of present times. The brain’s cognitive functioning, in many ways, is locked into specific patterns that work well for us most of the time yet leave us vulnerable at other times. We must not overlook the presence, when crafting strategy, of the “reptile brain” that causes people to get angry, get frustrated, withdraw, and oversimplify. The modern-day result is that people, including managers, often make decisions that are not factually grounded, not logical, and not in their self-interests. The idea of a consistently rational person is no longer accepted.

      The mind prefers simplicity and certainty. It is quite adept at neglecting complexity, ambiguity, and other features of the strategic situation. Managers convince themselves that they know more than they really do, they uncritically trust conventional explanations, and they trust experts in areas where the experts are guessing. Categories and stories dominate their mental life, and then they find themselves surprised by fast-moving events.

      Sometimes thinking is delusional. For example, John Nash made many original contributions to economics and game theory, resulting in him sharing a Nobel Prize in 1994. Nash also had a history of mental illness, such as believing that men who wore red ties were part of a conspiracy against him. Nash claimed that the same place in his brain that was the source of his most significant contributions to scholarship was also the source of his delusions. Insights are powerful but so is delusional thinking, and there may be a thin line between the two. Columbus wrongly insisted that the distance to Japan was about one-sixth of the actual distance. Perhaps Columbus was delusional, but maybe he was like a modern entrepreneur, Steve Jobs of Apple Computer, with a mental “reality distortion engine” that he used to influence the adoption of his ideas.

      Pillar IV of strategic thinking is a focus on success in the future, and the continual change in the world around you (in general) and technology (in particular) introduces a set of challenges that will only increase the “struggle against the limitations of our intelligence.”

      A competent strategic thinker doesn’t necessarily have a higher IQ than anyone else, nor is she necessarily better educated. Instead, she is more aware of what she knows and doesn’t know. She is skeptical about reliance on intuition, whether it be her own or that of others. She is resolved and determined to pursue betterment for herself and her stakeholders.

      It’s tempting to conflate strategic thinking with critical thinking, creative thinking, and systems thinking. Figure 3-2 provides selected similarities and differences that will help you understand that the nature, purpose, and scope of strategic thinking are distinct. Strategic thinking is explicitly concerned with strategy, including an orientation toward the future. When appropriate, strategic thinking incorporates the other styles of thinking.

      Pillar I – Individual capacity. Although Columbus needed the help of many other people, his individual experiences, insights, and effort are at the center of the story. He understood the situation, adapted to it, and formulated a reasonable approach to advance his interests and the interests of his sponsors.

      The emphasis on the individual also points out an interesting challenge for organizational development. Organizational culture is the reflection of individual values and preferences. It establishes and reflects conventions, however, that can suppress the genius of the individual, leading to dullness and mediocrity.

      Organizations need competent individual strategic thinkers at all levels. Everyone has the capacity to detect weak signals, to make sense of them, and to design and implement reasonable actions.