SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo
1 de 15
Baixar para ler offline
Using Conceptual Models to Improve an Executive’s
                                           Strategic Thinking
                                                      By James Neils


The reason there is a need for strategic thinking is quite simple; things change. What the organization did yesterday
quickly becomes a distant past as new opportunities and challenges continually emerge. For example, the Internet once
a challenge has become a driving force that influences how non-profits advertise, market, communicate and carry out
their missions. Now visible beyond their specific audiences non-profits attract attention world wide, which seems to be
both an opportunity and a threat. Members or constituents can easily communicate to the Board, executives and staff
while potential members, sponsors or donors may turn away from web sites that are outdated, not easy to use or which
lack information they seek.


Non-profit executives are learning, like those in the Business sector, they can no longer rely solely on the annual multi-day
strategy meeting to provide the guidance required for the ever-changing environment in which their organizations function.
In today's Internet paced environment in-addition to the annual comprehensive strategy session, the responsibility for
strategic thinking has shifted to the executive and staff. As a result, strategic thinking has moved to the forefront of skills
an executive must be able to competently demonstrate.


How do current and aspiring executives develop and maintain the skill of strategic thinking? How do executives develop a
cadre of staff equally skilled and capable? There is no single answer. Executives may need to realign their perspective,
their skills or emphasis on strategic thinking. For some it may mean a minor shift in their thinking or use of staff while for
others it could mean a significant change in the manner in which they work, delegate as well as respond to events and
issues.


To help an executive develop and/or improve their strategic thinking skill it is important to review common characteristics
and to recognize the challenges to becoming a strategic thinker. It is also essential to recognize the role which creativity
and conceptual thinking play and to investigate how conceptual models contribute a framework necessary for strategic
thinking. It is this critical step, the development and use of conceptual models that is the subject of this investigation.


The Existing Challenges
The life of any non-profit executive, and their staff for that matter, seems to be one of constant response. Evidenced by
simply reading trade magazines and journals, executives are expected to react and develop programs and services to
meet the organization’s mission and what is commonly considered member or constituent needs; regardless of the
frequency at which these needs change. Each month there is at least one article on the importance of those needs and
the consequences when they are not met.


As noted in the literature, to understand the demands and to formulate an appropriate response to member, constituent or
societal needs, data is gathered through surveys, focus groups while consultants and committee gather information to
review. Once the data and information is collected it becomes the responsibility of the executive and selected staff to
prepare a plan. At which point, executives may turn to colleagues, friends or consultants.


Briscoe researched how well executives used advice and discovered a larger problem. He found it was not simply how an
executive used the information but more importantly, whether the executive selected the most appropriate people to
provide assistance. He concluded to improve an executive’s strategic thinking, they needed to consider the type of advice
being sought and from whom.


Research by Ciampas discovered many executives lack the basic framework to aid their thinking. While executives may
seek assistance, he found they had no plan or reference markers to use to identify appropriate sources, to solicit specific
assistance or to evaluate the usefulness of the advice or information. This trait seems common to many personnel in
organizations from the smallest non-profit to large Federal government departments.


There is also a significant difference between gathering information and the thinking that makes the information useful.
Bellinger points out "While information entails an understanding of the relations between data, it generally does not
provide a foundation for why the data is what it is, nor an indication as to how the data is likely to change over time." Data
and information must fit into a process. When information begins to be connected into patterns or frameworks, which is
then connected to previous experiences, the process of strategic thinking is possible.


A Shift in Thinking
Recognizing the vast amount of information that is available and the temptation to seek out more data and information
how does an executive move from data gathering to strategic thinking? Martin recently suggested associations could play
an important role to assist members and “Provide analysis, letting members know the implications.” (ASAE Spring 2007)
While a worthy undertaking it also seems like a daunting task, expecting staff to communicate the implications about
problems the member’s encounter. It is doubtful many associations could even provide such service given the significant
difference between the current emphasis on the administrative skills needed for day-to-day association management and
the necessary shift to personnel with analytic skills required to provide the service.


Until that shift of staff skills occurs, it would seem more productive to teach executives about strategic thinking so they can
analyze and solve the problems they encounter. Further, adding more data or information may simply become a problem
in itself, and is counter productive to both the solution and the process of learning to be a strategic thinker. One of the
skills required it would seem is learning what and how much data to use, when to move from collection to thinking and
from thinking to problem solving.


Strategic thinking implies a search to understand what and a desire to ask why. To understand what, involves
determining whether the issue is an opportunity or threat, identifying the risks and rewards and measuring whether it is
consistent to the organization's mission. Recent literature has sufficiently illustrated how the SWOT and TOWS models
can and should become part of strategic analysis and management. But strategic thinking is also about asking why.


In recent years there has been great emphasis to teach executives, in particular, to think "outside-the-box." Why teach
people to think outside the box? One reason, as Lessor points out, is that strategic thinking, asking why, does not have
limits. Strategic planning may limit options into a workable plan of action, but strategic thinking is focused on why it is and
what it could become. To the question of why teach executives and staff to think "outside-the-box", it might be better to
ask: why do they get "inside-the-box" to think? Why an executive would limit and teach staff to limit their thinking to find
solutions to problems is a question which deserves greater attention, but it certainly seems counter productive to the
responsibility of leadership.


Creativity Boundaries
Writers on the subject of strategic thinking agree it is inherently linked to creativity. Innovation, changes in procedures or
new approaches imply some sort of creativity occurred in the thinking process. Unfortunately, there are a number of
barriers that can hinder development of creativity among executives and staff.
Bilton (2006) noted creativity is often viewed as being characteristic of people who are individualistic, are not "team"
oriented and/or are unmanageable. Browse any management section in a bookstore and the titles send a similar
message - learn how to manage creativity to get the most out of it. Is that not a contradiction? The private sector and
non-profits spend considerable funds on programs devoted to teaching their executives and staff how to be creative
thinkers, but at the same time often fail to recognize and reward them for unique solutions or ideas. Perhaps creativity is
desired and expected, just not too much creativity.


Research on creativity and strategic thinking further suggests repetition is an important factor to improving these skills.
Studies also indicate that the timing between the learning and use is critical. Attending a seminar on strategic thinking will
be most useful, if the application of the learning is immediate or nearly so. Consistent with other learning, as the time
between the learning of new skills and the application of those new skills increases, the usefulness of the learning
decreases. As a result, some have suggested executives practice thinking strategically on smaller day-to-day issues and
not wait for more serious issues to emerge. Repetition and daily practice is a good way to begin to make strategic
thinking part of the routine thought process.


The Path Less Traveled
In his article "A Framework for Strategic Thinking" Kevin Yousie defined and identified characteristics attributable to
strategic thinking. Paraphrasing, he defined strategic thinking as " a mindset" which has a "set of processes" and a "range
of competencies" to take advantage of "opportunities" to further the mission and direction of the organization.
His definition implies that strategic thinking is more than a task to be performed. Indeed, he and most others see strategic
thinking as a perspective, a way of looking at issues that is larger and more analytic than finding solutions. Writers also
agree that thinking becomes strategic when one examines why and how it is important to the mission of the organization.


As important, is the attributes associated with strategic thinking. One frequently cited attribute is the need for everyone in
the organization, not only the executive, to be capable and skilled in strategic thinking. Collectively their role is to
determine which issues are more important than others, which will be the most helpful and/or harmful to the organization
and to consider appropriate responses to those issues.       Just as the process of an annual strategy session has evolved
to become a skill set of the executive, so too must the executive realize they can no longer go alone and must be willing
and able to develop a staff skilled in strategic thinking.


The daily work demands may give rise to the notion that executives and staff have little time to learn and practice strategic
thinking. From this perspective, becoming a strategic thinker would seem like an impossible task. Daily administrative
work may not seem strategic, but any task can provide the occasion to question and to reason. Developing creative
and/or strategic thinking skills is a journey not a seminar or workshop. Contrary to what executives may believe, there
are numerous opportunities to think strategically.


For instance, the organization’s conference planner proposes a new registration deadline expecting to decrease the
number of members who register late or on-site. This is an opportunity for the executive to think and to teach staff to think
strategically by identifying all the resources that might be involved or affected by the decision. It is more than proposing a
new date, for it involves how the organization utilizes personnel to make the decision, to carry out the changes and all the
costs to successfully implement the change. It is also about thinking whether the return on the staff time and related cost
could be better spent on a different more productive project that more directly supports the organization’s mission.


Strategically, one of the more important resources an organization possesses is staff and staff time. A responsibility of
leadership is to identify how strategic resources can be best used and staff time is often, unfortunately, not viewed as a
strategic resource. It is not inexhaustible, though Boards, committees and even executives seem to think it is. So the
exercise of thinking about and teaching staff how to think about the use of staff time is strategic. It is also an exercise that
should be carried on at the Board and committee level as well.


A change to the conference fee deadline may not be strategic but the process of thinking through the decision can be.
Further, it can help staff learn how to see the larger picture and to engage in thinking about whether it would help or
hinder the organization carry out or meet its mission. Whether the decision to change a process would consume precious
staff and executive time is determined, in some ways by whether strategic thinking is routine throughout the organization.


Models on the Runway
While incremental and repetitive activities provide the necessary practice, it is the conceptual model that serves as the
building block to develop strategic thinking. Research on conceptual models and thinking suggests combining the two
helps to facilitate retention and makes understanding more meaningful. Because concepts often utilize visual
representations, people tend to remember concepts more easily than numerous facts.


To illustrate the power of conceptual thinking, take a moment to consider the title of this section, Models on the Runway.
For most readers it is quite easy to create a visual image for those four words. Some might have picture fashion models
exhibiting clothing on a runway, for some it might be model airplanes on an airport runway and some may even picture
fashion models on an airport runway. The resulting image is far richer in content than the text. In the same way,
conceptual models about management and organizations allow the executive the opportunity to interpret and define
relationships that text might not be able to detail. Some times conceptual models can be more appropriate to study
difficult problems than data in the form of numbers or text. In fact, studies of brain functions report much of decision-
making is a result of connecting various conceptual mental models and previous events into the understanding needed for
a decision.


Regardless of how well executives currently work with conceptual models, they may soon be expected to develop and use
models to reflect the political, economic and/or administrative environments within their organizations. There are non-
profit organizations which already have incorporated conceptual models into their philosophy and management to the
point they actively teach members and constituents how to develop conceptual models. The World Wildlife Fund, for
example, provides a sourcebook that instructs members and others how to build a practical conceptual model for wildlife
management projects. The guide explains why conceptual models are important tools to use to meet the standards
established by the organization and how the models are used on projects and programs that further the organization's
mission.


In Need Indeed
Conceptual models need not be complicated or difficult to build and can be adapted from others already in use. To
illustrate how, consider the issues facing the executive of an association of farm managers. The executive faced declining
membership, demands for a change with the board, changes to the core member base, criticism of the content to the
annual conference program offerings and demands by suppliers for a better return on their support to the association.


The association asked three consultants to consider the following: board representation, relevant and improved programs
and services, significant changes to member demographics, decline in revenues and finally, erosion among members and
staff attitudes about the organization’s future. In the end the consultants responded with a variety of tactical solutions but
not a strategic plan to implement. This is because, whether identified in a job description or not, it is the executive who,
as the organization’s chief strategist, must lead the organization through the crises.
In this case it would have been helpful for the executive to have a model to be able to explain to the board, members and
staff what had happened and why changes were needed. The issue for the executive was not simply to propose
solutions, but get the various groups to agree to the changes. To accomplish this, the various groups must identify and
accept the value of the solutions and to recognize the executive has taken their concerns, their roles and their “needs” into
consideration in the process of finding solutions. In other words, the executive needs something to help with the
economic, the social and the political forces acting within and on the organization.


Relevant Models
Over the years social scientists have become adept at constructing models to help define and identify the dynamics of
organizations and or individuals. One model seems particularly relevant to this case study and to non-profit organizations
in general. In 1943, Abraham Maslow authored “Motivation and Personality” in which he posited his theories regarding
needs and motivation and created what has since become commonly known as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. While not
suggesting that specific needs of an individual correlate to those needs found within and acting on a non-profit
organization, there are striking similarities, which make the use of his conceptual model useful.


Consider first, the role that needs and motivation might have played in the formation of any non-profit organization or
association. Whether it was to advance a profession, to set or improve standards, or to serve others, numerous
associations and non-profits owe their beginning to a single individual or small group who were motivated to act on a
perceived need with such passion others joined as well.


Beyond the formative role, professional needs seem to particularly dominate the literature regarding non-profit
management and executive responsibilities. There are two reasons needs seem so important: first, organizations are
legal entities and second, because they serve and are served by people. To carry out the mission organizations usually
have offices which require heat, electricity, furniture and people. Regardless of the mission, purpose or size, every
organization is a collection of people who possess their own personal set of needs, objectives and beliefs. When brought
together to fulfill the organization’s mission these same people develop a collective set of beliefs about what should be
done to meet the organization’s mission as well as their personal needs.


Motivation is no less important. Members are motivated to action and they expect, push and, at times, demand their
organizations meet organization and personal goals and/or objectives. Without motivation members would probably not
refer new members, would not serve on committees and would not create and lead seminars and programs.


As other professions have already discovered, Maslow's theory is simple to teach, adaptable for many uses and does not
impose limits or boundaries in application or usefulness. The fields of architecture, marketing, business, management,
human resources and other disciplines have not been shy about adapting his conceptual model for their use. His original
work featured seven levels but a more common representation involves just five levels. This simplified version serves as a
framework for a model that can be used by executives of non-profit organizations, particularly member based
associations.



                              Self Actualization

                       Esteem, Learning, Aesthetics
                                Love and Belonging
                            Safety and Security

                    Food, Shelter, Sex, Clothing & Sleep
Imitation by Design
By simply changing the labels in the five levels of the pyramid, the model seems to fit many non-profit organizations and
the particular case study about a member based association.


                                     Mission

                           Programs and Services

                            Membership and Belonging
                         Administration and Management

                       Incorporation, By-laws and the Board
                                         Governance

Reviewing the Organizational Hierarchy model shown in its simplest vertical form it contains the primary management and
functional administrative areas which operate in most non-profit organizations. At the base are the legal aspects
necessary for the organization's survival: Incorporation, By-laws and the Board. The second level contains Administration
and Management because organizations must have order, consistency, rules and effective procedures and policies.
These first two levels tend to be more organizationally oriented while those above are more directed at persons served by
the organization.


In the next three higher levels the emphasis changes from the legal and management functions to the actions and
activities designed to fulfill the mission of the organization. The Membership and Belonging level is next and where the
organization seeks to develop a sense of cohesion with and among members or constituents. One level higher is the
Programs and Services stage where the organization is focused, hopefully to carry out its mission. At its peak, similar to
Maslow’s level of Self-Actualization, is Mission. When the organization reaches this level it is, at a particular point in time,
effectively managed, achieving its goals and purposes and strongly connected to members and or constituents who have
a real sense of belonging and purpose with the organization. It is fulfilling its Mission.


Forces at Work
Unlike Maslow’s theory, in which individuals seek to satisfy needs at one level prior to moving to the next set of needs
above, the proposed Organizational Hierarchy model is quite different and more dynamic. Internal and external forces
constantly provide opportunities and also challenge an organization’s ability to sustain the effort needed to fulfill its
mission. While it is entirely possible for an organization to initially develop the administrative and program levels to
successfully carry out its mission, whether it remains at mission level is determined by a third force, the Competency of
the personnel and the Flexibility of the structure to respond to opportunities and threats. This third force, governs whether
the organization will remain at Mission level or be challenged at some level that will require organizational attention to fix
the problem.


Expanding the perspective from a one sided of a pyramid to that of looking down from above on a three dimensional
pyramid and it becomes possible to view how Competency and Flexibility as well as the External and Internal forces fit
into the completed model.




   Internal Forces
                                                        Competency
                                                        Flexibility
External Forces




At first it would seem as though Competency and Flexibility would be an Internal Force and in some ways it is. But it is
also more than an Internal Force as defined by management models such as SWOT or TOWS which tend to view them
as situational. Competency and Flexibility is about the culture of the organization and its administrative structure.



         Competency                  Mission
         Flexibility        Programs and Services

                          Membership and Belonging
                        Administration and Management
                       Incorporation, By-laws and the Board
                                        Governance

For example, Best Practices suggest most boards should not be larger than ten members, yet there are many boards
much larger. Should the need arise for a new executive, the existence of a large board may preclude some highly
competent executives from considering the position, as it is a reflection of both the culture and inflexibility of the
organization to adopt Best Practices.


The measure of Competency and Flexibility is why some organizations function well and others do not. When the
structure of the organization either by design within the incorporation and/or bylaws documents or in the administrative
functions in the form of policies and/or procedures inhibits members, constituents, staff, programs or services from being
able to respond appropriately then the organization will find it difficult to either reach or sustain Mission fulfillment.


Additionally, when personnel, including boards, do not possess the skill and/or talent, have the appropriate tools or
equipment, or a combination of these factors required to respond to an opportunity or threat that too will affect the ability
of the organization to maintain its Mission. Which is why, at times, an organization will, in response to an internal or
external force, find it necessary to request assistance outside of the organization in the form of consultants or companies
to provide the appropriate products or services. Whether it does is determined by the Competency of the decision makers
to recognize the need and level of competency and the general willingness to bring in someone from the “outside.”


Model Application
Returning to the case study, consider how the model might have helped the executive and others within the association.
First, it would have provided a framework which Ciampras and others have suggested is a necessary feature in decision
making. Having the framework would also have helped place the numerous issues into workable categories to prevent all
of the challenges from becoming overwhelming. It could have also provided a common frame of reference from which the
executive, staff, board, members and the consultants, brought in to assist the association, could think not only tactically of
solutions but strategically about the future role and responsibilities of the association.


It is interesting to note that the comments by the consultants validate the applicability of the Organizational Hierarchy
model since their responses focused on specific levels within the model and the importance of organizational Competency
and Flexibility. Summarizing their responses; the first consultant suggested the executive review the management of the
Board, the membership and the programs and services. The second consultant advised the executive to address
membership issues and identify similarities and differences; the member’s sense of belonging and their assimilation into
the Association. The final panelist recommended the executive work on the organization’s culture, the community of staff
 and members; and organizational acceptance to change, in other words Competency and Flexibility.


 The use of a conceptual model could have also helped the executive confront highly charged political and emotional
 issues such as the demands to change board representation and to provide relevant programs. Helping the board
 understand, particularly one that has experienced few changes, and then to agree to change representation is a not a task
 many executives might wish to take on. Without a conceptual framework which all parties can reference as changes
 occur or to help a board see how the plan will function would seem to make the task considerably more difficult.


 Learn to Model
 While conceptual models may be simple in design they can illustrate complex situations. Consider the relationship that
 exists between members, vendors, and the organization at the Program and Services level and how it can be visually
 illustrated. A model would need to show how Members interface with the Association and Vendors both of which provide
 services to members commonly identified as "benefits" as well as the relationship between the Board and Vendors.
 Additionally, the model would need to be able to differentiate that while each party may join together within the
 organization each is its own entity. Finally, this model would have to depict the relationship within the Organizational
 Hierarchy model. Looking down on the Program and Services level this model shows what was just described in text.

                Internal Forces
                                                                    Competency and Flexibility
                                             Organization


                    Member dues
Derived                                                 Non-dues revenue
Benefits

              Members                                Vendors




                           External Forces



 Another frequent topic in articles and at seminars involves member participation. Why do some members decide to
 participate and other not? Why would anyone deliberately choose to take on more work and responsibilities? Why would a
 person be willing to: stand and deliver a speech, to lead a seminar, to spend time in committee meetings or perform a task
 they might otherwise delegate to others? Why are they motivated to these actions? While not providing answers, simply
 comparing Maslow’s and Organizational Hierarchies does evoke a thought provoking perspective.


           Maslow Hierarchy of Needs                           Organizational Hierarchy
                 Self-Actualization                                Mission

           Learning – Self Esteem - Esteem                      Programs and Services

                     Belonging                                   Membership




 Conclusions and Applicability for Executives
 Prior to the current Information/data Revolution, when the pace of business was generally governed by the delivery of
 posted mail, responding to an internal or external force was slower, as was the pace of strategic thinking and the resulting
 decision making. Now with high speed computers, the ease of massive data collection/retrieval and the Internet which
 continues to accelerate the pace, the speed at which an organization must be able to respond has become more
immediate which is why Competency and Flexibility has become more important. As a result, strategic thinking has
moved to the forefront of skills for executives and the staff.


The true power of adapting conceptual models, whether it is Maslow’s or others, lies within the model’s ability to display
complex situations, relationships and forces operating within and on non-profit organizations. As shown, conceptual
models can play a powerful role, particularly within non-profit organization which can draw upon the expertise and tested
models from business, academia and colleagues.


Strategic thinking is about thinking, considering and asking, what and why. Strategic thinking is far more than solving
problems. It is a skill that takes practice to improve and there are barriers which can hinder its development. Yet,
increasingly, all organizations are recognizing that their survival rests on the ability and performance of the executive’s
and staff’s abilities to engage in strategic thinking.


The primary role of the executive is leadership. To be able with staff to strategically think through issues and produce a
process that unites the board, members, staff ad others to meet the Mission of the organization is leadership for which
executives are held responsible.


The challenge for the executive is more than simply attending a seminar to acquire a skill. Most of the authors on strategy
thinking have reached the conclusion that it is the mindset of the executive which ultimately determines the success of
strategic thinking within an organization. Harry Summers, a noted US Defense Department analyst was more direct. He
believes executives who have a drive to investigate, to inquire and to question will be successful in strategic thinking and
lacking that drive chances of success diminish.


To have an organization capable of functioning at Mission level on consistent level while meeting the internal and external
challenges is a testament to the skills and foresight of the executive, the staff and others who serve the organization
everyday. No small part in their thinking is the conceptual models which help them connect the information to
experiences to form the foundation of strategic thinking.


Commentary
One final comment should be included regarding the applicability of Abraham Maslow and the importance of his works to
non-profit organizations. In his later years Maslow served as a consultant to a number of companies and non-profits
organizations. During his time with NonLinear Systems, Inc., he maintained a now published journal. In his writing he
raised one question which every non-profit board, executive and staff member should remember:

     …most of us would argue that we believe in the potential of people and that people are our most important
     organizational assets. If that is the case, why then do we frequently design organizations to satisfy our
     need for control and not to maximize the contributions of people?”
End Notes


Gene Bellinger, The Value of Knowledge Management, Business and Organization, Knowledge Management,
www.systems-thinking.org/index.htm, 2004, p2.


Kevin Yousie, What, Why, How? A framework for Strategic Thinking, Banff Centre, 2007, pp.1-2.


Abraham Maslow with Deborah Stevens and Gary Heil, Maslow on Management, John Wiley New York, NY 1998. p.




                                                         Resources


Stan Abraham, Stretching strategic thinking, Journal of Strategy and Leadership, 2005, No. 5 Vol. 33, pp5-12


Air War College, Resource Guide, Air University, www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thkg.htm


Air War College, Competencies and Skills, Air University, www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thkg.htm


Brice Alford, The need for Strategic Thinking is Critical for Effective Continuous Improvement, EZine Articles,


Peter Banks, The marketing landscape has changed, Associations Now, American Society of Association
Executives/Center for Association Leadership, February 2007, Vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 35-40.


Gene Bellinger, The Value of Knowledge Management, Business and Organization, Knowledge Management,
www.systems-thinking.org/index.htm, p2. 2004,


Ingrid Bonn, Developing strategic thinking as a core competency, Journal of Management Decision, Emerald Publishers
April 2001 No. 1 Vol 3 pp. 63-70


Bernard Boar, Strategic thinking for information technology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997,


Scott Briscoe, A Piece of Advice, Associations Now, American Society of Association Executives/Center for Association
Leadership, March 2007, Vol. 3, No. 3. pp. 46-49.


CA magazine.com What Strategy is – and isn’t, Sept 2002, www.camagazine.com/index.cfm/ci_id/9654/la_id/htm


Center for Applied Research, What is Strategic Thinking, Briefing Notes, CFAR, Cambridge, MA, 2001, www.cfar.com


Kristen Clarke, A whole new mindset, Associations Now, American Society of Association Executives/Center for
Association Leadership, June 2007, Vol. 3, No. 7. pp. 25-28.


Jeffery Cufaude, Playing with Possibilities, Convene, PCMA, February 2007, p30.


Darden, Chapter 1 Strategic Thinking, University of Virginia, http://faculty/darden.viriginia.edu/bourgeois/files/chapter
%201.html
Walter Derzko, New Strategic thinking needed in the smart Economy, March 08, 2007,


Donald Freels, Define Your Association, National Association of Realtors Fall 1996,


Kevin Gallimore, The Impact of Creativity on Strategic Thinking, Manchester Metropolitan University Cheshire, No 14,
2004


Mark Golden, What Makes Associations Remarkable, Journal of Association Leadership, American Society of Association
Executives/Center for Association Leadership, Spring 2007, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 37-45


Haines Centre for Strategic Management, Strategic and Systems Thinking, Workshop


Ann Herrmann-Nehdi, The Creativity and Strategic Thinking Toolkit, Essentials for Maintaining a Competitive Edge ,
Hermann International, ASTD Session W216,


Ann Herrmann-Nehdi, The Creativity and Strategic Thinking Toolkit, Essential Competitive Competencies, Hermann
International, ASTD Session W106,


Jack Hipple, Risk Tolerance in strategic thinking: The Human Component, Innovation-TRIZ, Tampa, www.innovation-
triz.com


Historical Notes 2004, Association for Strategic Planning, www.strategyplus.org/history.html


Newton Holt, Better Thinking for a Better Tomorrow, Associations Now, American Society of Association
Executives/Center for Association Leadership, March 2007, Vol. 3, No. 3. pp. 24-28.


iLEAD, Strategic Planning, www.ilead.com.au/ideas/strategic thinking/strategic planning.htm


Kreisler, Harry and Barnes, Thomas, Military Strategy, Conversation with Harry G. Summers, Jr. March 16, 1996,
Conversations with History; Institute for International Studies, UC Berkeley
Taunya Land and Nancy Galligan, A new Paradigm for Strategic Planning, Forum, Association Forum of Chicagoland,
June 2007, Vol. 91 No. 5 pp. 28-29.


Alder Tsz Tan Lau, Making Sense of Contemporary Strategic Implementation: Towards a Conceptual Model , Logan
Textiles Pty, Ltd, Queensland Australia, Public Administration and Management, No. 4, Vol. 4, 1999, pp494-507


Lawrence, Eton, PSC-RD: Strategic Thinking, 1999


Phiilip Lesser, Put the ’Strategic’ in Strategic Planning, Forum, Association Forum of Chicagoland, November 2006, Vol.
90 No. 10 pp. 50-52


David Lorenzo, Creativity and Strategic Thinking, May 5, 2006, www.careerintensity.com/blog/2006/05/creativity-and-
strategic-thinking/
Andre Mamprin, Designing Knowledge Ecologies for Associations, Journal of Association Leadership, American Society
of Association Executives/Center for Association Leadership, Fall 2006, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 39-53

                                               nd
Abraham Maslow, Motivation and Personality, 2 ed, Harper and Row, New York, NY 1970.


Abraham Maslow with Deborah Stevens and Gary Heil, Maslow on Management, John Wiley, New York, NY 1998.


Paul Meyer and Jean Frankel, Is Your Strategic Plan Dead or Alive?, Forum, Association Forum of Chicagoland, August
2007, Vol. 91 No. 7 pp. 45-46.


Alexis Morgan, Basic Guidance for Cross Cutting Tools, Conceptual Models, World Wide Fund, October 2005.


James Morrison, From Strategic Planning to Strategic Thinking, On the Horizon, Jossey Bass, 1994, No. 2, Vol. 3 pp3-4.


National Defense University, Strategic Thinking, Chapter 9, Course Outline, www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/strat-ldr-
dm/pt2ch9.html


Maurice Ramirez, How to think like Einstein, Ezine articles, www.ezine.com


Irene Sanders, Strategic thinking and the new science: Planning in the midst of chaos, complexity and change , Simon and
Schuster, New York, 1998


Thomas Sanders, The Boomers are Coming! The Boomers are Coming!, Forum, Association Forum of Chicagoland,
January/February 2007, Vol. 91 No. 11 pp. 23-24.


Frank Schuurmans and Eric Strang, Managing Uncertainty and Complexity, Forum, Association Forum of Chicagoland,
June 2007, Vol. 91 No. 5 pp. 36-37.


Joan Sloan, Learning to think strategically, Sloan International Management Development, New York, NY June 2006.


John Voyer, Techniques for Improving Strategic Thinking, University of Southern Maine,


Steven Watson, Strategic thinking is the key to proactive management, techrepublic.com July 8, 2003.


1000 Ventures,Why strategic thinking, Strategic Management Course Series


Elisabeth H. Wiig and Karl M. Wiig, On Conceptual Learning, Knowledge Research Institute, Inc. Working Paper 1999-1,
1999.


Kevin Yousie, What, Why, How? A framework for Strategic Thinking, Banff Centre, 2006.
Mr. Neils’ career includes management and executive positions in for-profit and not-for-
profit organizations. Early in his career, he returned to academia and became interested
in researching organizational goals, performance measures and financial returns on non-
profit organizations. Although his published works are often directed toward non-profits,
his concepts and analysis are equally applicable to for-profits as well.

As his career progressed, Mr. Neils recognized the day-to-day demands on executives,
especially managers’, were most often at the tactical decision level, leaving little time to
improve or develop strategic skills. As a result, he developed a keen interest in strategic
thinking.

His first work was Using Conceptual Models to Improve an Executive’s Strategic
Thinking. This paper was a theoretical exploration of conceptual models and strategic
thinking. Adapting Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Social Needs” Mr. Neils examined
how internal and external forces act on organizations and executives.

Following that, he began to investigate how executives might integrate creativity as a
way to improve strategic thinking skills. This second article Creativity, Strategic
Thinking and Statistical Models questions how commonly used statistic models and
creativity might aid an executive’s and staff’s skill to think strategically.

Because of the interest generated from these articles, he began to investigate how
managers and executives learned to think strategically. His research found most
emphasis to be on attributes of strategic thinking people and the need to think strategic,
but little on teaching methodology. This prompted, Developing the Skill of Strategic
Thinking in which he suggests flowcharting as a possible method to teach staff, managers
and executives to become strategic thinkers.

Mr. Neils’ recently completed, What non-profits can learn from the Obama Campaign
argues the need for non-profits to improve their use of data and data analysis and makes
specific recommendations to follow.

Mr. Neils belongs to several LinkedIn groups on non-profit management, strategic
thinking and performance measures. He can be reached at James.neils@gmail.com and
skype at James.neils1 and sponsors a Twitter page called nonprofitsage.
Mr. Neils’ career includes management and executive positions in for-profit and not-for-
profit organizations. Early in his career, he returned to academia and became interested
in researching organizational goals, performance measures and financial returns on non-
profit organizations. Although his published works are often directed toward non-profits,
his concepts and analysis are equally applicable to for-profits as well.

As his career progressed, Mr. Neils recognized the day-to-day demands on executives,
especially managers’, were most often at the tactical decision level, leaving little time to
improve or develop strategic skills. As a result, he developed a keen interest in strategic
thinking.

His first work was Using Conceptual Models to Improve an Executive’s Strategic
Thinking. This paper was a theoretical exploration of conceptual models and strategic
thinking. Adapting Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Social Needs” Mr. Neils examined
how internal and external forces act on organizations and executives.

Following that, he began to investigate how executives might integrate creativity as a
way to improve strategic thinking skills. This second article Creativity, Strategic
Thinking and Statistical Models questions how commonly used statistic models and
creativity might aid an executive’s and staff’s skill to think strategically.

Because of the interest generated from these articles, he began to investigate how
managers and executives learned to think strategically. His research found most
emphasis to be on attributes of strategic thinking people and the need to think strategic,
but little on teaching methodology. This prompted, Developing the Skill of Strategic
Thinking in which he suggests flowcharting as a possible method to teach staff, managers
and executives to become strategic thinkers.

Mr. Neils’ recently completed, What non-profits can learn from the Obama Campaign
argues the need for non-profits to improve their use of data and data analysis and makes
specific recommendations to follow.

Mr. Neils belongs to several LinkedIn groups on non-profit management, strategic
thinking and performance measures. He can be reached at James.neils@gmail.com and
skype at James.neils1 and sponsors a Twitter page called nonprofitsage.
Mr. Neils’ career includes management and executive positions in for-profit and not-for-
profit organizations. Early in his career, he returned to academia and became interested
in researching organizational goals, performance measures and financial returns on non-
profit organizations. Although his published works are often directed toward non-profits,
his concepts and analysis are equally applicable to for-profits as well.

As his career progressed, Mr. Neils recognized the day-to-day demands on executives,
especially managers’, were most often at the tactical decision level, leaving little time to
improve or develop strategic skills. As a result, he developed a keen interest in strategic
thinking.

His first work was Using Conceptual Models to Improve an Executive’s Strategic
Thinking. This paper was a theoretical exploration of conceptual models and strategic
thinking. Adapting Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Social Needs” Mr. Neils examined
how internal and external forces act on organizations and executives.

Following that, he began to investigate how executives might integrate creativity as a
way to improve strategic thinking skills. This second article Creativity, Strategic
Thinking and Statistical Models questions how commonly used statistic models and
creativity might aid an executive’s and staff’s skill to think strategically.

Because of the interest generated from these articles, he began to investigate how
managers and executives learned to think strategically. His research found most
emphasis to be on attributes of strategic thinking people and the need to think strategic,
but little on teaching methodology. This prompted, Developing the Skill of Strategic
Thinking in which he suggests flowcharting as a possible method to teach staff, managers
and executives to become strategic thinkers.

Mr. Neils’ recently completed, What non-profits can learn from the Obama Campaign
argues the need for non-profits to improve their use of data and data analysis and makes
specific recommendations to follow.

Mr. Neils belongs to several LinkedIn groups on non-profit management, strategic
thinking and performance measures. He can be reached at James.neils@gmail.com and
skype at James.neils1 and sponsors a Twitter page called nonprofitsage.

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Executives And Strategic Thinking V3.2

  • 1. Using Conceptual Models to Improve an Executive’s Strategic Thinking By James Neils The reason there is a need for strategic thinking is quite simple; things change. What the organization did yesterday quickly becomes a distant past as new opportunities and challenges continually emerge. For example, the Internet once a challenge has become a driving force that influences how non-profits advertise, market, communicate and carry out their missions. Now visible beyond their specific audiences non-profits attract attention world wide, which seems to be both an opportunity and a threat. Members or constituents can easily communicate to the Board, executives and staff while potential members, sponsors or donors may turn away from web sites that are outdated, not easy to use or which lack information they seek. Non-profit executives are learning, like those in the Business sector, they can no longer rely solely on the annual multi-day strategy meeting to provide the guidance required for the ever-changing environment in which their organizations function. In today's Internet paced environment in-addition to the annual comprehensive strategy session, the responsibility for strategic thinking has shifted to the executive and staff. As a result, strategic thinking has moved to the forefront of skills an executive must be able to competently demonstrate. How do current and aspiring executives develop and maintain the skill of strategic thinking? How do executives develop a cadre of staff equally skilled and capable? There is no single answer. Executives may need to realign their perspective, their skills or emphasis on strategic thinking. For some it may mean a minor shift in their thinking or use of staff while for others it could mean a significant change in the manner in which they work, delegate as well as respond to events and issues. To help an executive develop and/or improve their strategic thinking skill it is important to review common characteristics and to recognize the challenges to becoming a strategic thinker. It is also essential to recognize the role which creativity and conceptual thinking play and to investigate how conceptual models contribute a framework necessary for strategic thinking. It is this critical step, the development and use of conceptual models that is the subject of this investigation. The Existing Challenges The life of any non-profit executive, and their staff for that matter, seems to be one of constant response. Evidenced by simply reading trade magazines and journals, executives are expected to react and develop programs and services to meet the organization’s mission and what is commonly considered member or constituent needs; regardless of the frequency at which these needs change. Each month there is at least one article on the importance of those needs and the consequences when they are not met. As noted in the literature, to understand the demands and to formulate an appropriate response to member, constituent or societal needs, data is gathered through surveys, focus groups while consultants and committee gather information to review. Once the data and information is collected it becomes the responsibility of the executive and selected staff to prepare a plan. At which point, executives may turn to colleagues, friends or consultants. Briscoe researched how well executives used advice and discovered a larger problem. He found it was not simply how an executive used the information but more importantly, whether the executive selected the most appropriate people to
  • 2. provide assistance. He concluded to improve an executive’s strategic thinking, they needed to consider the type of advice being sought and from whom. Research by Ciampas discovered many executives lack the basic framework to aid their thinking. While executives may seek assistance, he found they had no plan or reference markers to use to identify appropriate sources, to solicit specific assistance or to evaluate the usefulness of the advice or information. This trait seems common to many personnel in organizations from the smallest non-profit to large Federal government departments. There is also a significant difference between gathering information and the thinking that makes the information useful. Bellinger points out "While information entails an understanding of the relations between data, it generally does not provide a foundation for why the data is what it is, nor an indication as to how the data is likely to change over time." Data and information must fit into a process. When information begins to be connected into patterns or frameworks, which is then connected to previous experiences, the process of strategic thinking is possible. A Shift in Thinking Recognizing the vast amount of information that is available and the temptation to seek out more data and information how does an executive move from data gathering to strategic thinking? Martin recently suggested associations could play an important role to assist members and “Provide analysis, letting members know the implications.” (ASAE Spring 2007) While a worthy undertaking it also seems like a daunting task, expecting staff to communicate the implications about problems the member’s encounter. It is doubtful many associations could even provide such service given the significant difference between the current emphasis on the administrative skills needed for day-to-day association management and the necessary shift to personnel with analytic skills required to provide the service. Until that shift of staff skills occurs, it would seem more productive to teach executives about strategic thinking so they can analyze and solve the problems they encounter. Further, adding more data or information may simply become a problem in itself, and is counter productive to both the solution and the process of learning to be a strategic thinker. One of the skills required it would seem is learning what and how much data to use, when to move from collection to thinking and from thinking to problem solving. Strategic thinking implies a search to understand what and a desire to ask why. To understand what, involves determining whether the issue is an opportunity or threat, identifying the risks and rewards and measuring whether it is consistent to the organization's mission. Recent literature has sufficiently illustrated how the SWOT and TOWS models can and should become part of strategic analysis and management. But strategic thinking is also about asking why. In recent years there has been great emphasis to teach executives, in particular, to think "outside-the-box." Why teach people to think outside the box? One reason, as Lessor points out, is that strategic thinking, asking why, does not have limits. Strategic planning may limit options into a workable plan of action, but strategic thinking is focused on why it is and what it could become. To the question of why teach executives and staff to think "outside-the-box", it might be better to ask: why do they get "inside-the-box" to think? Why an executive would limit and teach staff to limit their thinking to find solutions to problems is a question which deserves greater attention, but it certainly seems counter productive to the responsibility of leadership. Creativity Boundaries Writers on the subject of strategic thinking agree it is inherently linked to creativity. Innovation, changes in procedures or new approaches imply some sort of creativity occurred in the thinking process. Unfortunately, there are a number of barriers that can hinder development of creativity among executives and staff.
  • 3. Bilton (2006) noted creativity is often viewed as being characteristic of people who are individualistic, are not "team" oriented and/or are unmanageable. Browse any management section in a bookstore and the titles send a similar message - learn how to manage creativity to get the most out of it. Is that not a contradiction? The private sector and non-profits spend considerable funds on programs devoted to teaching their executives and staff how to be creative thinkers, but at the same time often fail to recognize and reward them for unique solutions or ideas. Perhaps creativity is desired and expected, just not too much creativity. Research on creativity and strategic thinking further suggests repetition is an important factor to improving these skills. Studies also indicate that the timing between the learning and use is critical. Attending a seminar on strategic thinking will be most useful, if the application of the learning is immediate or nearly so. Consistent with other learning, as the time between the learning of new skills and the application of those new skills increases, the usefulness of the learning decreases. As a result, some have suggested executives practice thinking strategically on smaller day-to-day issues and not wait for more serious issues to emerge. Repetition and daily practice is a good way to begin to make strategic thinking part of the routine thought process. The Path Less Traveled In his article "A Framework for Strategic Thinking" Kevin Yousie defined and identified characteristics attributable to strategic thinking. Paraphrasing, he defined strategic thinking as " a mindset" which has a "set of processes" and a "range of competencies" to take advantage of "opportunities" to further the mission and direction of the organization. His definition implies that strategic thinking is more than a task to be performed. Indeed, he and most others see strategic thinking as a perspective, a way of looking at issues that is larger and more analytic than finding solutions. Writers also agree that thinking becomes strategic when one examines why and how it is important to the mission of the organization. As important, is the attributes associated with strategic thinking. One frequently cited attribute is the need for everyone in the organization, not only the executive, to be capable and skilled in strategic thinking. Collectively their role is to determine which issues are more important than others, which will be the most helpful and/or harmful to the organization and to consider appropriate responses to those issues. Just as the process of an annual strategy session has evolved to become a skill set of the executive, so too must the executive realize they can no longer go alone and must be willing and able to develop a staff skilled in strategic thinking. The daily work demands may give rise to the notion that executives and staff have little time to learn and practice strategic thinking. From this perspective, becoming a strategic thinker would seem like an impossible task. Daily administrative work may not seem strategic, but any task can provide the occasion to question and to reason. Developing creative and/or strategic thinking skills is a journey not a seminar or workshop. Contrary to what executives may believe, there are numerous opportunities to think strategically. For instance, the organization’s conference planner proposes a new registration deadline expecting to decrease the number of members who register late or on-site. This is an opportunity for the executive to think and to teach staff to think strategically by identifying all the resources that might be involved or affected by the decision. It is more than proposing a new date, for it involves how the organization utilizes personnel to make the decision, to carry out the changes and all the costs to successfully implement the change. It is also about thinking whether the return on the staff time and related cost could be better spent on a different more productive project that more directly supports the organization’s mission. Strategically, one of the more important resources an organization possesses is staff and staff time. A responsibility of leadership is to identify how strategic resources can be best used and staff time is often, unfortunately, not viewed as a
  • 4. strategic resource. It is not inexhaustible, though Boards, committees and even executives seem to think it is. So the exercise of thinking about and teaching staff how to think about the use of staff time is strategic. It is also an exercise that should be carried on at the Board and committee level as well. A change to the conference fee deadline may not be strategic but the process of thinking through the decision can be. Further, it can help staff learn how to see the larger picture and to engage in thinking about whether it would help or hinder the organization carry out or meet its mission. Whether the decision to change a process would consume precious staff and executive time is determined, in some ways by whether strategic thinking is routine throughout the organization. Models on the Runway While incremental and repetitive activities provide the necessary practice, it is the conceptual model that serves as the building block to develop strategic thinking. Research on conceptual models and thinking suggests combining the two helps to facilitate retention and makes understanding more meaningful. Because concepts often utilize visual representations, people tend to remember concepts more easily than numerous facts. To illustrate the power of conceptual thinking, take a moment to consider the title of this section, Models on the Runway. For most readers it is quite easy to create a visual image for those four words. Some might have picture fashion models exhibiting clothing on a runway, for some it might be model airplanes on an airport runway and some may even picture fashion models on an airport runway. The resulting image is far richer in content than the text. In the same way, conceptual models about management and organizations allow the executive the opportunity to interpret and define relationships that text might not be able to detail. Some times conceptual models can be more appropriate to study difficult problems than data in the form of numbers or text. In fact, studies of brain functions report much of decision- making is a result of connecting various conceptual mental models and previous events into the understanding needed for a decision. Regardless of how well executives currently work with conceptual models, they may soon be expected to develop and use models to reflect the political, economic and/or administrative environments within their organizations. There are non- profit organizations which already have incorporated conceptual models into their philosophy and management to the point they actively teach members and constituents how to develop conceptual models. The World Wildlife Fund, for example, provides a sourcebook that instructs members and others how to build a practical conceptual model for wildlife management projects. The guide explains why conceptual models are important tools to use to meet the standards established by the organization and how the models are used on projects and programs that further the organization's mission. In Need Indeed Conceptual models need not be complicated or difficult to build and can be adapted from others already in use. To illustrate how, consider the issues facing the executive of an association of farm managers. The executive faced declining membership, demands for a change with the board, changes to the core member base, criticism of the content to the annual conference program offerings and demands by suppliers for a better return on their support to the association. The association asked three consultants to consider the following: board representation, relevant and improved programs and services, significant changes to member demographics, decline in revenues and finally, erosion among members and staff attitudes about the organization’s future. In the end the consultants responded with a variety of tactical solutions but not a strategic plan to implement. This is because, whether identified in a job description or not, it is the executive who, as the organization’s chief strategist, must lead the organization through the crises.
  • 5. In this case it would have been helpful for the executive to have a model to be able to explain to the board, members and staff what had happened and why changes were needed. The issue for the executive was not simply to propose solutions, but get the various groups to agree to the changes. To accomplish this, the various groups must identify and accept the value of the solutions and to recognize the executive has taken their concerns, their roles and their “needs” into consideration in the process of finding solutions. In other words, the executive needs something to help with the economic, the social and the political forces acting within and on the organization. Relevant Models Over the years social scientists have become adept at constructing models to help define and identify the dynamics of organizations and or individuals. One model seems particularly relevant to this case study and to non-profit organizations in general. In 1943, Abraham Maslow authored “Motivation and Personality” in which he posited his theories regarding needs and motivation and created what has since become commonly known as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. While not suggesting that specific needs of an individual correlate to those needs found within and acting on a non-profit organization, there are striking similarities, which make the use of his conceptual model useful. Consider first, the role that needs and motivation might have played in the formation of any non-profit organization or association. Whether it was to advance a profession, to set or improve standards, or to serve others, numerous associations and non-profits owe their beginning to a single individual or small group who were motivated to act on a perceived need with such passion others joined as well. Beyond the formative role, professional needs seem to particularly dominate the literature regarding non-profit management and executive responsibilities. There are two reasons needs seem so important: first, organizations are legal entities and second, because they serve and are served by people. To carry out the mission organizations usually have offices which require heat, electricity, furniture and people. Regardless of the mission, purpose or size, every organization is a collection of people who possess their own personal set of needs, objectives and beliefs. When brought together to fulfill the organization’s mission these same people develop a collective set of beliefs about what should be done to meet the organization’s mission as well as their personal needs. Motivation is no less important. Members are motivated to action and they expect, push and, at times, demand their organizations meet organization and personal goals and/or objectives. Without motivation members would probably not refer new members, would not serve on committees and would not create and lead seminars and programs. As other professions have already discovered, Maslow's theory is simple to teach, adaptable for many uses and does not impose limits or boundaries in application or usefulness. The fields of architecture, marketing, business, management, human resources and other disciplines have not been shy about adapting his conceptual model for their use. His original work featured seven levels but a more common representation involves just five levels. This simplified version serves as a framework for a model that can be used by executives of non-profit organizations, particularly member based associations. Self Actualization Esteem, Learning, Aesthetics Love and Belonging Safety and Security Food, Shelter, Sex, Clothing & Sleep
  • 6. Imitation by Design By simply changing the labels in the five levels of the pyramid, the model seems to fit many non-profit organizations and the particular case study about a member based association. Mission Programs and Services Membership and Belonging Administration and Management Incorporation, By-laws and the Board Governance Reviewing the Organizational Hierarchy model shown in its simplest vertical form it contains the primary management and functional administrative areas which operate in most non-profit organizations. At the base are the legal aspects necessary for the organization's survival: Incorporation, By-laws and the Board. The second level contains Administration and Management because organizations must have order, consistency, rules and effective procedures and policies. These first two levels tend to be more organizationally oriented while those above are more directed at persons served by the organization. In the next three higher levels the emphasis changes from the legal and management functions to the actions and activities designed to fulfill the mission of the organization. The Membership and Belonging level is next and where the organization seeks to develop a sense of cohesion with and among members or constituents. One level higher is the Programs and Services stage where the organization is focused, hopefully to carry out its mission. At its peak, similar to Maslow’s level of Self-Actualization, is Mission. When the organization reaches this level it is, at a particular point in time, effectively managed, achieving its goals and purposes and strongly connected to members and or constituents who have a real sense of belonging and purpose with the organization. It is fulfilling its Mission. Forces at Work Unlike Maslow’s theory, in which individuals seek to satisfy needs at one level prior to moving to the next set of needs above, the proposed Organizational Hierarchy model is quite different and more dynamic. Internal and external forces constantly provide opportunities and also challenge an organization’s ability to sustain the effort needed to fulfill its mission. While it is entirely possible for an organization to initially develop the administrative and program levels to successfully carry out its mission, whether it remains at mission level is determined by a third force, the Competency of the personnel and the Flexibility of the structure to respond to opportunities and threats. This third force, governs whether the organization will remain at Mission level or be challenged at some level that will require organizational attention to fix the problem. Expanding the perspective from a one sided of a pyramid to that of looking down from above on a three dimensional pyramid and it becomes possible to view how Competency and Flexibility as well as the External and Internal forces fit into the completed model. Internal Forces Competency Flexibility
  • 7. External Forces At first it would seem as though Competency and Flexibility would be an Internal Force and in some ways it is. But it is also more than an Internal Force as defined by management models such as SWOT or TOWS which tend to view them as situational. Competency and Flexibility is about the culture of the organization and its administrative structure. Competency Mission Flexibility Programs and Services Membership and Belonging Administration and Management Incorporation, By-laws and the Board Governance For example, Best Practices suggest most boards should not be larger than ten members, yet there are many boards much larger. Should the need arise for a new executive, the existence of a large board may preclude some highly competent executives from considering the position, as it is a reflection of both the culture and inflexibility of the organization to adopt Best Practices. The measure of Competency and Flexibility is why some organizations function well and others do not. When the structure of the organization either by design within the incorporation and/or bylaws documents or in the administrative functions in the form of policies and/or procedures inhibits members, constituents, staff, programs or services from being able to respond appropriately then the organization will find it difficult to either reach or sustain Mission fulfillment. Additionally, when personnel, including boards, do not possess the skill and/or talent, have the appropriate tools or equipment, or a combination of these factors required to respond to an opportunity or threat that too will affect the ability of the organization to maintain its Mission. Which is why, at times, an organization will, in response to an internal or external force, find it necessary to request assistance outside of the organization in the form of consultants or companies to provide the appropriate products or services. Whether it does is determined by the Competency of the decision makers to recognize the need and level of competency and the general willingness to bring in someone from the “outside.” Model Application Returning to the case study, consider how the model might have helped the executive and others within the association. First, it would have provided a framework which Ciampras and others have suggested is a necessary feature in decision making. Having the framework would also have helped place the numerous issues into workable categories to prevent all of the challenges from becoming overwhelming. It could have also provided a common frame of reference from which the executive, staff, board, members and the consultants, brought in to assist the association, could think not only tactically of solutions but strategically about the future role and responsibilities of the association. It is interesting to note that the comments by the consultants validate the applicability of the Organizational Hierarchy model since their responses focused on specific levels within the model and the importance of organizational Competency and Flexibility. Summarizing their responses; the first consultant suggested the executive review the management of the Board, the membership and the programs and services. The second consultant advised the executive to address membership issues and identify similarities and differences; the member’s sense of belonging and their assimilation into
  • 8. the Association. The final panelist recommended the executive work on the organization’s culture, the community of staff and members; and organizational acceptance to change, in other words Competency and Flexibility. The use of a conceptual model could have also helped the executive confront highly charged political and emotional issues such as the demands to change board representation and to provide relevant programs. Helping the board understand, particularly one that has experienced few changes, and then to agree to change representation is a not a task many executives might wish to take on. Without a conceptual framework which all parties can reference as changes occur or to help a board see how the plan will function would seem to make the task considerably more difficult. Learn to Model While conceptual models may be simple in design they can illustrate complex situations. Consider the relationship that exists between members, vendors, and the organization at the Program and Services level and how it can be visually illustrated. A model would need to show how Members interface with the Association and Vendors both of which provide services to members commonly identified as "benefits" as well as the relationship between the Board and Vendors. Additionally, the model would need to be able to differentiate that while each party may join together within the organization each is its own entity. Finally, this model would have to depict the relationship within the Organizational Hierarchy model. Looking down on the Program and Services level this model shows what was just described in text. Internal Forces Competency and Flexibility Organization Member dues Derived Non-dues revenue Benefits Members Vendors External Forces Another frequent topic in articles and at seminars involves member participation. Why do some members decide to participate and other not? Why would anyone deliberately choose to take on more work and responsibilities? Why would a person be willing to: stand and deliver a speech, to lead a seminar, to spend time in committee meetings or perform a task they might otherwise delegate to others? Why are they motivated to these actions? While not providing answers, simply comparing Maslow’s and Organizational Hierarchies does evoke a thought provoking perspective. Maslow Hierarchy of Needs Organizational Hierarchy Self-Actualization Mission Learning – Self Esteem - Esteem Programs and Services Belonging Membership Conclusions and Applicability for Executives Prior to the current Information/data Revolution, when the pace of business was generally governed by the delivery of posted mail, responding to an internal or external force was slower, as was the pace of strategic thinking and the resulting decision making. Now with high speed computers, the ease of massive data collection/retrieval and the Internet which continues to accelerate the pace, the speed at which an organization must be able to respond has become more
  • 9. immediate which is why Competency and Flexibility has become more important. As a result, strategic thinking has moved to the forefront of skills for executives and the staff. The true power of adapting conceptual models, whether it is Maslow’s or others, lies within the model’s ability to display complex situations, relationships and forces operating within and on non-profit organizations. As shown, conceptual models can play a powerful role, particularly within non-profit organization which can draw upon the expertise and tested models from business, academia and colleagues. Strategic thinking is about thinking, considering and asking, what and why. Strategic thinking is far more than solving problems. It is a skill that takes practice to improve and there are barriers which can hinder its development. Yet, increasingly, all organizations are recognizing that their survival rests on the ability and performance of the executive’s and staff’s abilities to engage in strategic thinking. The primary role of the executive is leadership. To be able with staff to strategically think through issues and produce a process that unites the board, members, staff ad others to meet the Mission of the organization is leadership for which executives are held responsible. The challenge for the executive is more than simply attending a seminar to acquire a skill. Most of the authors on strategy thinking have reached the conclusion that it is the mindset of the executive which ultimately determines the success of strategic thinking within an organization. Harry Summers, a noted US Defense Department analyst was more direct. He believes executives who have a drive to investigate, to inquire and to question will be successful in strategic thinking and lacking that drive chances of success diminish. To have an organization capable of functioning at Mission level on consistent level while meeting the internal and external challenges is a testament to the skills and foresight of the executive, the staff and others who serve the organization everyday. No small part in their thinking is the conceptual models which help them connect the information to experiences to form the foundation of strategic thinking. Commentary One final comment should be included regarding the applicability of Abraham Maslow and the importance of his works to non-profit organizations. In his later years Maslow served as a consultant to a number of companies and non-profits organizations. During his time with NonLinear Systems, Inc., he maintained a now published journal. In his writing he raised one question which every non-profit board, executive and staff member should remember: …most of us would argue that we believe in the potential of people and that people are our most important organizational assets. If that is the case, why then do we frequently design organizations to satisfy our need for control and not to maximize the contributions of people?”
  • 10. End Notes Gene Bellinger, The Value of Knowledge Management, Business and Organization, Knowledge Management, www.systems-thinking.org/index.htm, 2004, p2. Kevin Yousie, What, Why, How? A framework for Strategic Thinking, Banff Centre, 2007, pp.1-2. Abraham Maslow with Deborah Stevens and Gary Heil, Maslow on Management, John Wiley New York, NY 1998. p. Resources Stan Abraham, Stretching strategic thinking, Journal of Strategy and Leadership, 2005, No. 5 Vol. 33, pp5-12 Air War College, Resource Guide, Air University, www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thkg.htm Air War College, Competencies and Skills, Air University, www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thkg.htm Brice Alford, The need for Strategic Thinking is Critical for Effective Continuous Improvement, EZine Articles, Peter Banks, The marketing landscape has changed, Associations Now, American Society of Association Executives/Center for Association Leadership, February 2007, Vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 35-40. Gene Bellinger, The Value of Knowledge Management, Business and Organization, Knowledge Management, www.systems-thinking.org/index.htm, p2. 2004, Ingrid Bonn, Developing strategic thinking as a core competency, Journal of Management Decision, Emerald Publishers April 2001 No. 1 Vol 3 pp. 63-70 Bernard Boar, Strategic thinking for information technology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997, Scott Briscoe, A Piece of Advice, Associations Now, American Society of Association Executives/Center for Association Leadership, March 2007, Vol. 3, No. 3. pp. 46-49. CA magazine.com What Strategy is – and isn’t, Sept 2002, www.camagazine.com/index.cfm/ci_id/9654/la_id/htm Center for Applied Research, What is Strategic Thinking, Briefing Notes, CFAR, Cambridge, MA, 2001, www.cfar.com Kristen Clarke, A whole new mindset, Associations Now, American Society of Association Executives/Center for Association Leadership, June 2007, Vol. 3, No. 7. pp. 25-28. Jeffery Cufaude, Playing with Possibilities, Convene, PCMA, February 2007, p30. Darden, Chapter 1 Strategic Thinking, University of Virginia, http://faculty/darden.viriginia.edu/bourgeois/files/chapter %201.html
  • 11. Walter Derzko, New Strategic thinking needed in the smart Economy, March 08, 2007, Donald Freels, Define Your Association, National Association of Realtors Fall 1996, Kevin Gallimore, The Impact of Creativity on Strategic Thinking, Manchester Metropolitan University Cheshire, No 14, 2004 Mark Golden, What Makes Associations Remarkable, Journal of Association Leadership, American Society of Association Executives/Center for Association Leadership, Spring 2007, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 37-45 Haines Centre for Strategic Management, Strategic and Systems Thinking, Workshop Ann Herrmann-Nehdi, The Creativity and Strategic Thinking Toolkit, Essentials for Maintaining a Competitive Edge , Hermann International, ASTD Session W216, Ann Herrmann-Nehdi, The Creativity and Strategic Thinking Toolkit, Essential Competitive Competencies, Hermann International, ASTD Session W106, Jack Hipple, Risk Tolerance in strategic thinking: The Human Component, Innovation-TRIZ, Tampa, www.innovation- triz.com Historical Notes 2004, Association for Strategic Planning, www.strategyplus.org/history.html Newton Holt, Better Thinking for a Better Tomorrow, Associations Now, American Society of Association Executives/Center for Association Leadership, March 2007, Vol. 3, No. 3. pp. 24-28. iLEAD, Strategic Planning, www.ilead.com.au/ideas/strategic thinking/strategic planning.htm Kreisler, Harry and Barnes, Thomas, Military Strategy, Conversation with Harry G. Summers, Jr. March 16, 1996, Conversations with History; Institute for International Studies, UC Berkeley Taunya Land and Nancy Galligan, A new Paradigm for Strategic Planning, Forum, Association Forum of Chicagoland, June 2007, Vol. 91 No. 5 pp. 28-29. Alder Tsz Tan Lau, Making Sense of Contemporary Strategic Implementation: Towards a Conceptual Model , Logan Textiles Pty, Ltd, Queensland Australia, Public Administration and Management, No. 4, Vol. 4, 1999, pp494-507 Lawrence, Eton, PSC-RD: Strategic Thinking, 1999 Phiilip Lesser, Put the ’Strategic’ in Strategic Planning, Forum, Association Forum of Chicagoland, November 2006, Vol. 90 No. 10 pp. 50-52 David Lorenzo, Creativity and Strategic Thinking, May 5, 2006, www.careerintensity.com/blog/2006/05/creativity-and- strategic-thinking/
  • 12. Andre Mamprin, Designing Knowledge Ecologies for Associations, Journal of Association Leadership, American Society of Association Executives/Center for Association Leadership, Fall 2006, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 39-53 nd Abraham Maslow, Motivation and Personality, 2 ed, Harper and Row, New York, NY 1970. Abraham Maslow with Deborah Stevens and Gary Heil, Maslow on Management, John Wiley, New York, NY 1998. Paul Meyer and Jean Frankel, Is Your Strategic Plan Dead or Alive?, Forum, Association Forum of Chicagoland, August 2007, Vol. 91 No. 7 pp. 45-46. Alexis Morgan, Basic Guidance for Cross Cutting Tools, Conceptual Models, World Wide Fund, October 2005. James Morrison, From Strategic Planning to Strategic Thinking, On the Horizon, Jossey Bass, 1994, No. 2, Vol. 3 pp3-4. National Defense University, Strategic Thinking, Chapter 9, Course Outline, www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/strat-ldr- dm/pt2ch9.html Maurice Ramirez, How to think like Einstein, Ezine articles, www.ezine.com Irene Sanders, Strategic thinking and the new science: Planning in the midst of chaos, complexity and change , Simon and Schuster, New York, 1998 Thomas Sanders, The Boomers are Coming! The Boomers are Coming!, Forum, Association Forum of Chicagoland, January/February 2007, Vol. 91 No. 11 pp. 23-24. Frank Schuurmans and Eric Strang, Managing Uncertainty and Complexity, Forum, Association Forum of Chicagoland, June 2007, Vol. 91 No. 5 pp. 36-37. Joan Sloan, Learning to think strategically, Sloan International Management Development, New York, NY June 2006. John Voyer, Techniques for Improving Strategic Thinking, University of Southern Maine, Steven Watson, Strategic thinking is the key to proactive management, techrepublic.com July 8, 2003. 1000 Ventures,Why strategic thinking, Strategic Management Course Series Elisabeth H. Wiig and Karl M. Wiig, On Conceptual Learning, Knowledge Research Institute, Inc. Working Paper 1999-1, 1999. Kevin Yousie, What, Why, How? A framework for Strategic Thinking, Banff Centre, 2006.
  • 13. Mr. Neils’ career includes management and executive positions in for-profit and not-for- profit organizations. Early in his career, he returned to academia and became interested in researching organizational goals, performance measures and financial returns on non- profit organizations. Although his published works are often directed toward non-profits, his concepts and analysis are equally applicable to for-profits as well. As his career progressed, Mr. Neils recognized the day-to-day demands on executives, especially managers’, were most often at the tactical decision level, leaving little time to improve or develop strategic skills. As a result, he developed a keen interest in strategic thinking. His first work was Using Conceptual Models to Improve an Executive’s Strategic Thinking. This paper was a theoretical exploration of conceptual models and strategic thinking. Adapting Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Social Needs” Mr. Neils examined how internal and external forces act on organizations and executives. Following that, he began to investigate how executives might integrate creativity as a way to improve strategic thinking skills. This second article Creativity, Strategic Thinking and Statistical Models questions how commonly used statistic models and creativity might aid an executive’s and staff’s skill to think strategically. Because of the interest generated from these articles, he began to investigate how managers and executives learned to think strategically. His research found most emphasis to be on attributes of strategic thinking people and the need to think strategic, but little on teaching methodology. This prompted, Developing the Skill of Strategic Thinking in which he suggests flowcharting as a possible method to teach staff, managers and executives to become strategic thinkers. Mr. Neils’ recently completed, What non-profits can learn from the Obama Campaign argues the need for non-profits to improve their use of data and data analysis and makes specific recommendations to follow. Mr. Neils belongs to several LinkedIn groups on non-profit management, strategic thinking and performance measures. He can be reached at James.neils@gmail.com and skype at James.neils1 and sponsors a Twitter page called nonprofitsage.
  • 14. Mr. Neils’ career includes management and executive positions in for-profit and not-for- profit organizations. Early in his career, he returned to academia and became interested in researching organizational goals, performance measures and financial returns on non- profit organizations. Although his published works are often directed toward non-profits, his concepts and analysis are equally applicable to for-profits as well. As his career progressed, Mr. Neils recognized the day-to-day demands on executives, especially managers’, were most often at the tactical decision level, leaving little time to improve or develop strategic skills. As a result, he developed a keen interest in strategic thinking. His first work was Using Conceptual Models to Improve an Executive’s Strategic Thinking. This paper was a theoretical exploration of conceptual models and strategic thinking. Adapting Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Social Needs” Mr. Neils examined how internal and external forces act on organizations and executives. Following that, he began to investigate how executives might integrate creativity as a way to improve strategic thinking skills. This second article Creativity, Strategic Thinking and Statistical Models questions how commonly used statistic models and creativity might aid an executive’s and staff’s skill to think strategically. Because of the interest generated from these articles, he began to investigate how managers and executives learned to think strategically. His research found most emphasis to be on attributes of strategic thinking people and the need to think strategic, but little on teaching methodology. This prompted, Developing the Skill of Strategic Thinking in which he suggests flowcharting as a possible method to teach staff, managers and executives to become strategic thinkers. Mr. Neils’ recently completed, What non-profits can learn from the Obama Campaign argues the need for non-profits to improve their use of data and data analysis and makes specific recommendations to follow. Mr. Neils belongs to several LinkedIn groups on non-profit management, strategic thinking and performance measures. He can be reached at James.neils@gmail.com and skype at James.neils1 and sponsors a Twitter page called nonprofitsage.
  • 15. Mr. Neils’ career includes management and executive positions in for-profit and not-for- profit organizations. Early in his career, he returned to academia and became interested in researching organizational goals, performance measures and financial returns on non- profit organizations. Although his published works are often directed toward non-profits, his concepts and analysis are equally applicable to for-profits as well. As his career progressed, Mr. Neils recognized the day-to-day demands on executives, especially managers’, were most often at the tactical decision level, leaving little time to improve or develop strategic skills. As a result, he developed a keen interest in strategic thinking. His first work was Using Conceptual Models to Improve an Executive’s Strategic Thinking. This paper was a theoretical exploration of conceptual models and strategic thinking. Adapting Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Social Needs” Mr. Neils examined how internal and external forces act on organizations and executives. Following that, he began to investigate how executives might integrate creativity as a way to improve strategic thinking skills. This second article Creativity, Strategic Thinking and Statistical Models questions how commonly used statistic models and creativity might aid an executive’s and staff’s skill to think strategically. Because of the interest generated from these articles, he began to investigate how managers and executives learned to think strategically. His research found most emphasis to be on attributes of strategic thinking people and the need to think strategic, but little on teaching methodology. This prompted, Developing the Skill of Strategic Thinking in which he suggests flowcharting as a possible method to teach staff, managers and executives to become strategic thinkers. Mr. Neils’ recently completed, What non-profits can learn from the Obama Campaign argues the need for non-profits to improve their use of data and data analysis and makes specific recommendations to follow. Mr. Neils belongs to several LinkedIn groups on non-profit management, strategic thinking and performance measures. He can be reached at James.neils@gmail.com and skype at James.neils1 and sponsors a Twitter page called nonprofitsage.