There's an interesting post today in the Harvard Business Review Working Knowledge newsletter entitled "Why Don't Managers Think Deeply?"
Professor James Heskett highlights GE CEO Geoffrey Immelt's recent pronouncements that he is: looking for managers to think deeply about innovations that will ensure GE's longer-term success. He has vowed that he will protect those working on the breakthroughs from the "budget slashers" focused on short-term success. (Professor Heskett also reviews the book Marketing Metaphoria and the perspectives of the authors: Gerald and Lindsay Zaltman on why managers don't think deeply.)
As I leader, I've wrestled with this topic for years, and have worked around and with many individuals perfectly content to let their days unfold in a transactional nature, with no time to think deeply or even strategically. Days pass into months and months to years, and still these individuals prefer conquering the issue of the moment versus wondering whether they are even working on the right issues.
I look forward to learning more about what the Zaltmans have to say about this issue above and beyond what Professor Heskett highlights in his post when I read their book. For now, here are a few of my perspectives on why managers don't think deeply:
- Personal characteristics: some people are not great strategists but excellent operators and they focus on where they are most comfortable making a contribution.
- Poor leaders above them that don't create the forums and opportunities to think big. This fits with my strategy-fueled theme where in my opinion; the best leaders involve everyone in sharing insights and developing ideas for strategy. This provides ample opportunity for individuals to contribute and teaches otherwise task-oriented people that it is OK to get out of the moment once in awhile.
- Bad personal time management habits. Some managers like crossing off a bunch of lower-level, "C" priorities than focusing on one "A" priority. This can be corrected.
- Fear of being accountable for something. I worked with a sales manager that absolutely hated to work on anything beyond the deals of the month. While his focus on results created some good outcomes for us, as the business changed and evolved, his ability to contribute dropped dramatically. When it was said and done, he admitted that he was uncomfortable considering big changes when it was so hard to drive short-term results.
- Frustration with impediments to change. If Immelt is imploring his people to innovate, the GE culture better darned well be willing to turn ideas into actions or the creative flow will shut down quickly. I've observed cultures where the leader preaches change as the rest of the team nods and then proceeds to do nothing.
The bottom-line for now:
It's hard for most of us to think creatively on command. Moving from a transactional model to a state of lateral or divergent thinking requires making and taking time. As leaders, we can help improve and support Mr. Immelt's suggestion (hard to argue with the intent) by creating opportunities for the right types of discussions and by supporting the movement of ideas into actions, products and services. Try holding your leaders accountable for creating a culture of innovation and then let them loose. The results may surprise you.
Art,
I applaud Geoffry’s efforts.
As the “creative guy” for most of my life it is inherently a lonely and politically dangerous place.
I have served leaders who value this gift for over 13 years, and some intimidated by it for less than three years.
As a result of this gift you are exposed to many industries, business channels, and micro markets. Ironic really the very gift that makes you valuable continues to develop through needing to find new organizations to help when current leaders feel intimated by its use.
Thinking I was “broken” at one point in my career I hired a coach to help me through( loose) the struggle of creative ideas, creative problem solving, after one of the CEO’s I was trying to help said “every time you open your mouth you make me feel stupid.” After a number of assessment and profile tests and meeting with the founder who wrote the tests I found what I am is called a “futuristic thinker.”
Somewhere we learned the highest ranking person in the room needs to be the smartest. That may have worked when chasing down mammoth but today leaders must embrace each team members’ gifts. For years I would write the following under my signature “none of us are as smart as all of us “when I led teams in hope to be a fire starter in their culture. The great leaders I have served did not try to suppress natural creativity but gave it an environment to soar.
So troubled with why creative thinkers are not embraced by organizational cultures I found the following;
1. When you solve problems creatively, it creates a lack of comfort with superiors who feel they may run into a mammoth
2. Peers feel intimidated and quickly assume you are trying to politically show them up
3. You quickly become alone , an island in the organization as you just don’t seem to fit, you do not assimilate to the company speak and “that’s not how we do things around here”
4. Insecure leaders feel your creativity in some way reduces their power in the eyes of the team
5. Statistically less than 10% of the population is what Geoffrey is looking for which is a “futuristic thinker”
6. How could I solve market problems so quickly? It was because I spent 75% of my time in the market, listening to its problems hearing it’s perceptions, not because I was smarter.
Most people see the problem and not through it. They are limited by the perceived box they think the organization and their supervisor has placed them in. When a problem arises their thoughts are immediately limited, boxed within company speak to fix with little or no connection to the market.This is very dangerous in teams that have leaders who are Tuned Out.
Hat’s off to Geoffrey as the only thing I did not admire about GE was their cavalier fire the bottom 10% every year. This does not foster creativity or stepping out. It fosters political correctness and fear.
Would love to hear more from you on this.
Mark, awesome comment on the post. I think we should flip them…yours makes a better posting than mine! Great and thoughtful analysis with a powerful personal tie-in. The contrast between leaders who value your creative gifts and those who are intimidated by it is stark. I get angry thinking about a leader who so misunderstood the role of leadership that an associate had to seek external input. Kudos to you for your self discovery and thanks again for such a powerful commentary on the issue. I will definitely build on this topic in the future.
-Art
Art: I like this post. I’d like to add some of my own opinions about why manager’s don’t think deeply:
People confuse form with substance: Brilliant presentations, PowerPoint’s, or “hot programs” may be attractive and create a lot of interest, but many have no depth beyond the bullet point on the chart. People haven’t really thought about what the strategy and the most effective means of execution. People don’t get into deep discussions about the issues or alternatives.
Activity trumps results and effectiveness: We. particularly American business professionals, have a bias to activity. We see nothing wrong with Ready, Fire, Aim. The activity is often unfocused, aimless, and ineffective. We are often to busy with our activities to take the time to think.
Activity can be mistaken for accountability: “Busy people must be doing important things and producing good results.” In reality, busy people may be busy people, but “busyness” does not necessarily mean a lot is being accomplished. The greatest sin made in the name of “busyness” is multitasking–we simultaneously sit in a meeting, process our emails, text message on our phones, and think about what we want to do on the weekend. This keeps us from focusing on what we must do.
Thinking—at least results focused thinking– forces us to make choices. It forces us to commit to a course of action and to execute it. Many people are afraid to commit to a course of action. It is better to react or do nothing than it is to commit to something and to be held accountable.
Thinking deeply is messy hard work. It is difficult to reduce it to a bullet point. It is demanding and takes time—but time spent thinking doesn’t look like activity. The results aren’t pretty and can sometimes be complicated to present and get others to support.
Thinking deeply requires the ability to integrate and synthesize. Some people just aren’t good at this–but it is critical for leaders.
Thinking deeply isn’t rewarded in a lot of organizations. It’s hard to measure, consequently hard to reward. Thinking takes away from “busyness.” it’s easier to measure and reward activities.
Thinking deeply may be threatening to senior executives. Senior executives who don’t take the time or have difficulty thinking deeply about issues will, justifiably, feel threatened by subordinates that take the time to think before acting.
And I could go on, but enough for now. I would be remiss though, if I didn’t look at some of the downsides of thinking deeply. I have encountered people in business who are deep thinkers, yet who cannot translate the results of their thinking into meaningful action.
Deep thinking must be accompanied my meaningful—thoughtful action. Without this it is never tested and the results are never produced.
Dave, between your post and Mark’s above, we’ve got the beginnings of a powerful article. I love your perspective on activity being mistaken for accountability. In prior lives, I’ve observed “hours” being confused with commitment and productivity as well, even if the people that put in the 14 to 16 hours spent most of this time being anything but productive. They definitely were not thinking deeply. I also like your take on the potential downsides. I’ve found that matching the deep-thinkers with people who know how to put things into action can help leverage the collective strengths. Thanks for sharing your perspective! -Art