What makes designers so effective in one realm of product and marketing ideas, like effectual decision-making, also creates a lot of struggle in other types of decisions (operational, analytical, and evidential).
Effectual thinking starts with what you have. You begin with available resources (like skills, insights, networks) and see what you can create from them. The challenge most teams face is that this is only one of the types of decisions the org needs to make.
Causal decision-making Starts with a goal. You define a desired outcome first, then plan backward to reach it. Businesses like this type of decision-making because it focuses on predictability. You analyze, compare, and measure progress toward a known objective.
Effectual thinking: create from what’s possible.
Causal thinking: plan from what’s known.
In my experience, great teams figure out how to work in all four realms, aligning their teammates as a project unfolds. A healthy mix of all is necessary.
When designers focus on only one realm, they tend to isolate themselves and create significant gaps in effectiveness with the rest of the org.
I’m curious about your experiences and how decision-making works for your team. For those of you who are curious about how effectively your team makes decisions across these four areas, click on the free assessment link in the nav and find out!
Wondering if this applies to orgs with specific verticals? Is there a world where each box has its own human operating and then they all come together?
But we must consider that company groups are not made up of 4 people, nor are groups of people equally distributed across these areas. So there’s always an embalance.
The more design plays a roll in shepherding these thinking styles, the easier it becomes for the organization to appreciate design.
Exploring user needs, audience building, concept development, and curiosity through hunches are all ways to use exploratory decision-making. These are effectual type tasks.
Totally agree with this “But we must consider that company groups are not made up of 4 people, nor are groups of people equally distributed across these areas. So there’s always an embalance.”
I’d argue too that the more folks can expand those horizons and create that overlap, the more harmony there will be within groups. It provides a more cohesive experience.
I think this is a highly specialized skill. Possibly a biological gift. Having the emotional and psychological awareness to recognize these things takes time and experience, and possibly some instincts that not everyone possesses.
Actually, this is not true, @ericz. Much has been written on this topic.
While aptitude has its place, most people simply do not have the right structures to learn, or they’d rather watch a TV show, hang out, etc.
These are all learned skills, and with the right motivation, people and teams can become proficient at these tasks. Thinking and doing aren’t reserved for elites.
In the case of Glare, we lay the blocks to help people lean into what they need to learn to create more impact in their work.
He popularized the idea that skill and mastery are largely built through environment and structured practice, not innate talent.
His most popular example is from the elite Canadian youth hockey. Most of the top players share birthdays in January, February, and March.
Why?
Because the cutoff date for age groups is January 1. Kids born early in the year are a little older, a little bigger, and a little more coordinated when they start. They get picked for the better teams, get better coaching, get more ice time, and get more chances to improve.
