Strategies & Analysis
3. What are the Conditions for success?
What must be true?
Here we must NOT over-analyze. Does
the option “feel” logical is the question?
The discussion is about “what would
have to be true” not, “what is true”. This
approach forces skeptics to specify the
exact source of any skepticism rather
than issue a blanket condemnation.
During this step the group discussion
cannot be allowed to slip into whether
or not conditions are true. This has to be
strictly prohibited. The point here is very
simple . . . to ferret out “what would have
to be true” for every member of the group
to feel cognitively and emotionally committed to each possibility under consideration.
Time to Weed the List: The previous
exercise typically overshoots and the list of
conditions crosses the line between MUST
HAVE & NICE TO HAVE. Question then
for each possibility is . . . . . . if every condition but this one held true, would you
eliminate the possibility or still view it as
viable? If the answer is the former, the condition is a must-have and should be maintained. If it is the latter, it is a NICE TO
HAVE and should be removed.
4. ID Barriers to Choice
At this time we must direct a critical judg-
ment on these conditions. To do this ef-
fectively, here’s the crucial questions that
must be considered:
• Ask each group member to imagine
they could buy a promise that any
particular condition will hold true.
To which condition would they ap-
ply that promise?
• The condition they choose is the biggest barrier to choosing the possibility under consideration.
• The next condition to which they
would apply a promise is the next-biggest barrier, and so on
5. Design Tests for the Barrier Conditions
You have acknowledged and prearranged
the key barrier conditions, the group must
test each one to see whether it holds true. The
tests can be many and detailed but the group
as a whole must agree with the selection.
6. Conducting the Tests
Simply, testing conditions in the reverse
order of the group’s confidence is efficient
use of time and money. That is, the condition the group feels is least likely to hold
up is tested first. If the group’s suspicion
is right, the possibility at hand can be
eliminated without any further testing. If
that condition passes the test, the condition with the next-lowest likelihood of
confirmation is tested, and so on.
Typically, at this step you may want to
bring in people from outside the strategy
team – consultants or experts in relevant
functional or geographic units, who can
help fine-tune and conduct the tests you
have prioritized. It is important to ensure
that they concentrate solely on testing. You
are not asking them to revisit the conditions.
7. Make the Choice
With the possibilities-based approach,
the choice-making step becomes uncomplicated, even anticlimactic. The group
needs only to review the analytical test results and choose the possibility that faces
the fewest serious barriers.
First, in the early steps, they must
avoid asking “What should we do?”
and instead ask “What might we do?”
Managers, especially those who pride
themselves on being decisive, jump naturally to the former question and get restless when tackling the latter.
Second, in the middle steps, managers must shift from asking “What do I
believe?” to asking “What would I have
to believe?” This requires a manager to
imagine that each possibility, including
ones he does not like, is a great idea, and
such a mind-set does not come naturally
to most people. It’s needed, however, to
identify the right tests for a possibility.
Finally, by focusing a team on prob-lem-solving the critical conditions and
tests, the possibilities-based approach
forces managers to move away from
asking “What is the right answer?” and
concentrate instead on “What are the
right questions? What specifically must
we know in order to make a good decision. The possibilities-based approach
relies on and fosters a team’s ability to
inquire. And genuine inquiry must lie
at the heart of any process that aims to
be scientific. CW
