Neurocognitive Inefficacy of the Strategy Process

@article{citeulike:2939105, abstract = {The most widely used (and taught) protocols for strategic analysis--Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) and Porter's (1980) Five Force Framework for industry analysis--have been found to be insufficient as stimuli for strategy creation or even as a basis for further strategy development. We approach this problem from a neurocognitive perspective. We see profound incompatibilities between the cognitive process--deductive reasoning--channeled into the collective mind of strategists within the formal planning process through its tools of strategic analysis (i.e., rational technologies) and the essentially inductive reasoning process actually needed to address ill-defined, complex strategic situations. Thus, strategic analysis protocols that may appear to be and, indeed, are entirely rational and logical are not interpretable as such at the neuronal substrate level where thinking takes place. The analytical structure (or propositional representation) of these tools results in a mental dead end, the phenomenon known in cognitive psychology as functional fixedness. The difficulty lies with the inability of the brain to make out meaningful (i.e., strategy-provoking) stimuli from the mental images (or depictive representations) generated by strategic analysis tools. We propose decreasing dependence on these tools and conducting further research employing brain imaging technology to explore complex data handling protocols with richer mental representation and greater potential for strategy creation. 10.1196/annals.1412.012}, author = {Klein, Harold E. and D'Esposito, M. A. R. K. }, citeulike-article-id = {2939105}, comment = {Amazingly, it seems the buzzword compliant organisational brainstorming tools might not amount to a complete agenda for planning for the future. What fills the gaps? Action research? no, apparently, brain imaging. Is there any gap brain imaging cannot be proposed to fill?}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/annals.1412.012}, journal = {Ann NY Acad Sci}, keywords = {futures, institutions, mind}, month = {November}, number = {1}, pages = {163--185}, posted-at = {2008-06-28 12:58:19}, priority = {2}, title = {Neurocognitive Inefficacy of the Strategy Process}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/annals.1412.012}, volume = {1118}, year = {2007} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:2939105 L3 - citeulike-article-id:2939105 TI - Neurocognitive Inefficacy of the Strategy Process JF - Ann NY Acad Sci VL - 1118 IS - 1 SP - 163 EP - 185 N2 - The most widely used (and taught) protocols for strategic analysis--Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) and Porter's (1980) Five Force Framework for industry analysis--have been found to be insufficient as stimuli for strategy creation or even as a basis for further strategy development. We approach this problem from a neurocognitive perspective. We see profound incompatibilities between the cognitive process--deductive reasoning--channeled into the collective mind of strategists within the formal planning process through its tools of strategic analysis (i.e., rational technologies) and the essentially inductive reasoning process actually needed to address ill-defined, complex strategic situations. Thus, strategic analysis protocols that may appear to be and, indeed, are entirely rational and logical are not interpretable as such at the neuronal substrate level where thinking takes place. The analytical structure (or propositional representation) of these tools results in a mental dead end, the phenomenon known in cognitive psychology as functional fixedness. The difficulty lies with the inability of the brain to make out meaningful (i.e., strategy-provoking) stimuli from the mental images (or depictive representations) generated by strategic analysis tools. We propose decreasing dependence on these tools and conducting further research employing brain imaging technology to explore complex data handling protocols with richer mental representation and greater potential for strategy creation. 10.1196/annals.1412.012 KW - futures KW - institutions KW - mind N1 - Amazingly, it seems the buzzword compliant organisational brainstorming tools might not amount to a complete agenda for planning for the future. What fills the gaps? Action research? no, apparently, brain imaging. Is there any gap brain imaging cannot be proposed to fill? AU - Klein, Harold AU - D'Esposito, MARK PY - 2007/11/01/ UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1196/annals.1412.012 ER -