■ Determining that one object in the distance is closer than another.
■ Looking toward the direction of a loud and sudden sound.
■ Completing the phrase “peanut butter and…”
■ Making a “sad face” when shown a heartbreaking photo.
■ Detecting anger in someone's voice.
■ Understanding two- to three-word sentences.
■ Driving a vehicle on an empty road.
Kahneman also provides examples attributed to System 2 thinking:
■ Looking for a person wearing a red hat.
■ Walking faster than normal.
■ Self-monitoring and self-regulating your behavior.
■ Stating your telephone number.
■ Comparing and contrasting the value of consumer goods.
■ Completing and submitting the annual tax form.
■ Evaluating a complex logical argument.
Just like the two types of questions highlighted earlier, System 1 and System 2 thinking both serve different purposes.
We believe that System 1 and System 2 exploration is not an either-or proposition. Rather, we consider both to be conducive to credible analysis and exploration. The issue therefore is not which System to apply but, rather, when to emphasize each and what risks to consider when placing too much emphasis on one or the other. More specifically, when should you apply a process-driven methodology and when should you broaden your thinking to include or emphasize intuition or instinct? What are the trade-offs or risks of placing too much emphasis on one type of thinking and too little on the other?
While the preceding exploration focuses heavily on the internal cognitive process, it is imperative that the internal process occurs with conscious awareness of context. Alva Noë, a professor of philosophy and expert in the theory of perception, emphasizes the importance of paying attention both to what one is doing and how one is doing it at any given moment:
Suppose I am a hiker. I walk along and move my legs in all sorts of subtle ways to follow a path along a trail. But the steps I take and the way I move my legs are modulated by, controlled by, the textures and bumps and patterns of the trail itself. There is a kind of locking in. To study experience, to think about the nature of experience, is to look at this two-way dynamic exchange between the world and the active perceiver.8
Context is as critical to the leaders' thinking as it is to the hiker's walk.
Conversations with Bobby Duby,9 a world-class hunter, showcase these tenets. Bobby is a hunter even hunting opponents like. He takes steps to follow all state laws pertaining to wildlife conservation and hunting, only kills enough animals to provides an adequate amount of meat for his family, takes steps to leave only footprints behind when leaving a hunting area, works with local wildlife officers when he comes across illegal or questionable practices, and does all that he can to help ensure the animals he shoots do not suffer. He also takes steps to level the playing field. For example, he only hunts with a compound bow, hunts only on land in which game has escape routes, and does not bait his prey. Bobby realizes taking these steps comes with a price; in all likelihood, they decrease his success as a hunter. This is noteworthy given that some people pay professional guides up to $15,000 to $20,000 to hunt as he does and where he does.
While attempting to follow the hunting principles of his forefathers, what does Bobby do to increase the odds of his hunting trips being successful? In many ways, he applies the thought processes and discovery methods we have highlighted here – for example:
■ Bobby believes that there is no substitute for hunting time. The more time you spend in the field, the more likely you are to succeed as a hunter.
■ He relies heavily on his intuition, which he believes is strengthened each hunting season. In seeking to strengthen his intuition, he believes that his failures are as important as his accomplishments.
■ Bobby studies maps of his hunting area, studies the flora and fauna therein, monitors weather patterns, and analyzes changes in elevation of the terrain. He applies both structured analysis and “a gut feeling” that he has developed over time to determine what this information implies.
■ He periodically reassesses the situation during each hunting trip, evaluating presenting events and circumstances to recognize unanticipated and unexpected occurrences that might influence his thinking and behavior during the remainder of the trip.
■ Bobby has conversations with as many individuals as he can who might be familiar with the area, the wildlife, and prevailing or emerging situations, events, and circumstances.
These examples reflect the integrated application of both types of discovery questions as well as both System 1 and System 2 thinking. Bobby integrates these methods to improve his performance as a hunter, just as we each have the opportunity to integrate practical concepts from cognitive psychology into our work and daily lives.
We consider systems thinking to be a key element of strategic thinking. Much has been written about systems thinking since noted systems scientist Barry Richmond began studying and writing about the topic in the late 1990s.10 Richmond considers most challenges we face to be multifaceted, interconnected, and constantly changing. He stresses the challenge of recognizing and understanding these interdependencies when dealing with such complexity. Given this challenge, he has been a champion for more effective methods of thinking.
Unfortunately, many people do not think in a way that is likely to recognize and understand the complexity that surrounds them. Richmond notes that many people are raised to be linear, sequential, and one-dimensional thinkers. For our purposes, we will focus our discussion on the tendency of some individuals to demonstrate a “checklist” mentality. While Richmond identifies other important implications of linear thinking, we emphasize the checklist mentality because it is particularly relevant to our exploration in this book.
One implication of having a checklist mentality is considering “cause” to be the one or two actions that occur immediately prior to a particular event. Such a cause-effect relationship can reveal an unconscious assumption that only directly linked factors can influence an event in meaningful ways, underestimating the relevance and impact of indirect causes and influences.
Whenever an incident occurs, an individual using this mode of thinking would likely ask:
■ Have we identified the one or two actions immediately preceding the state, event, or incident? If so, check.
■ Have we created a solution to be applied to the one or two contributing factors? If so, check.
Having evaluated and confirmed these two questions, the matter would be considered closed. Unfortunately, this leaves several additional questions unexplored:
■ What other factors directly or indirectly influence the event?
■ Do each of these factors contribute equally, or do some have a greater impact than others?
■ To what extent will a specific solution address the contributing factors?
■ Which solutions should occur first, second, and third to ensure optimal results?
■ Is this event a symptom of some larger problem?
Each of these questions combats the checklist mentality by opening up the possibility of discovering additional relevant data.
We frequently observe the checklist mentality at play when working with our clients, colleagues, and graduate students. We therefore recognize the strength of Richmond's recommendations for countering such a mind-set