Thinking is hard. Planning is hard. Figuring out why what you are thinking and planning isn’t working, is harder still. But in a fast-moving world, we are often doing our thinking and planning on the fly. We are taking action even as we are still processing important considerations, and we are regularly trying to remedy problems as they are happening—the proverbial changing-the-aircraft-engine in mid-air dilemma.

There are many reasons why this approach is often unsuccessful. A not unsubstantial cause is the pressure we all feel to be productive quickly. That stress can feel unrelenting and pushes us to want to “solve” or “fix” things fast. Because so few of the issues in our universe are “stand alone,” considering the implications of choices can be a time and energy consuming activity. Doing so involves generating sequences of if/then reasoning, often with many branches along the way. And that exercise produces considerable data which requires precious time for reflection. We’ve even given a pejorative name to how that can appear to others: “analysis paralysis” reflects both our penchant for rhyming terms and our bias toward speed. 

And that bias is not without some good reason. Research on successful executives notes that being able to make decisions quickly is an asset shared by many individuals who achieve that status. But, when one considers why that capability is deemed important, the value placed upon being able to make choices rapidly is often connected to the volume of decisions that come across a senior leader’s desk that can’t move forward without a yea or nay from her or him. Ironically, whether decisions are made promptly can be assessed fairly easily, while considering whether a decision is well-thought-through and in alignment with an organization’s priorities is more difficult to measure.  Most strategic decisions won’t lend themselves to quick-and-dirty decision-making, and, typically, there are others just like them queued for examination, as well. The analysis of quality of decision-making requires consideration of complex, often multi-dimensional variables, a daunting process at best. And the temporal separation of action and result makes the analysis of cause and effect feel tenuous. When one adds in our bias toward valuing what we can measure, it is unsurprising that we are often engaged in measuring what is most accessible rather than most meaningful!

But for thoughts to have true value they require connection—to other thoughts and other systems of thinking. Creating good thought systems is a fundament of good leadership. You can’t catch fish when there are holes in your net; tightening up your thought system is basically good leadership hygiene.

Systems thinking is key to ensuring that we are making good decisions. Failing to consider how plans or decisions become part of a larger pattern of choices is, essentially, amoral decision-making. Choices require context, both historical and future-based considerations must factor into our strategic decision-making. 

While it may seem inherently contradictory, even good systems-thinking requires some boundaries. Yes, these boundaries are artifices; however, without setting limits on where the consideration of otherwise never-ending sequences of constantly evolving thought systems will be cut off, decisions can never be reached.  This is where one of the subtle yet critical arts of effective leadership comes into play: great leaders seem to idiosyncratically establish the parameters of the playing field for their thinking, (and, ultimately, decision making) even though doing so is, at its heart, subjective.

But it is not random. Setting boundaries for their thinking systems is a kind of leadership risk management, and It draws on a leader’s knowledge, experience and intuition. Just as good leaders identify the right pacing for decision-making for an enterprise, leaders must have a considered sense of what is “in bounds” and what is “out of bounds” for the systems within which she/he thinks. 

Leadership development starts with helping leaders get their internal house in order. Ensuring that time is taken by employees to reflect and think, to evaluate and create a context for their decision-making is an investment not just for high-potential employees, but with high potential for organizations vested in the outcomes of those leaders’ decisions. Leaders who understand their own thinking systems, who have done the work of making them concrete and explicit to themselves, are better equipped leaders. 

Organizations can help themselves and their employees by doing three things: First, name this process. Identify this oft-neglected element of leadership and urge employees to undertake the self-reflection required to become more self-aware. Second, provide time for this reflection: present it as an employee benefit, similar to wellness offerings. Third, provide the structure for leaders to succeed in this task. Present opportunities for employees to do the work of examining their thought systems on important topics (for example, around what it means to be inclusive) and raising them to the level of articulation for their own consideration, and, potentially, revision. Set the organization’s most creative and thoughtful leadership and talent developers to work on creating vehicles---workbooks, reading lists, experiential opportunities with structured debriefs, to prompt growth and raise the visibility of this leadership superpower. 

Then, stand back and watch them soar.

ADDITIONAL BLOGS THAT COULD BE OF INTEREST