Strategy as Framing Contests

Cognitive frameworks is the area of strategy that I'm particularly interested in and whilst it sounds a bit technical, it is simply the way you see the world.  We all have mental models we use unconsciously to help us interpret the world, without these we would be forced to have to rethink the world for each situation we came across.

For example, confronted with a shop, we have a model in our heads about how these things called shops work and as long as the experience we have is in line with our model we can engage quickly and efficiently.  Now go to a shop in a foreign country and things take much longer initially as you have to reinterpret the world to make sure your model works in this slightly altered situation.

It is the same when confronted with a problem that is strategic in nature.  If the problem fits one of our existing models of how the world works (for example a new competitor opens nearby) we will try and solve the problem using what has worked for us in the past.  The problem with strategic problems is that sometimes (lets make that usually or even always) they don't neatly fit our models but rather than adapting our model, we usually try and crush the problem so it fits with our model.  This is another area cognitive simplification but lets not go there right now.

Sarah Kaplan researched and published a very interesting article in this area called 'Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty'.  The paper showed that when there are differences between how people see a problem and its potential solution, they tend to try and exert their cognitive frame on others in order to make their view, the organisations view - hence the title framing contests.  This is different than our traditional view of strategy as more of a joining of minds to develop a shared and agreed 'optimal' solution.

One of the very interesting aspects I noted was people were much more aware of the operation of other’s frames than that of their own.

“If they find facts to support their view, they grab it at face value. Anything that contradicts their view, they put through a micro-fine sieve.”
This is in line with previous cognition research that indicates when we receive a piece of new information that concurs with our view of the world we tend to accept it whilst anything that contradicts our view, we tend to reject.  Rather than have to change our minds, we simply filter the information.

I'll pick up on this point at an organisational level later as organisations tend to do the same.........

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mintzberg and Waters' strategy model

Image
It is interesting how some strategic management models come and go whilst other ones seem to survive the test of time.  In 1985 Henry Mintzberg (one of the leading strategic management thinkers) and James Waters developed a model to demonstrate how the strategy that is ultimately delivered is made of two parts; deliberate strategy (what the organisation set out to do) and emergent strategy (what happened on the way). In their original paper the model looks just a little clunky, word processing not as it is today, but very recognisable for all scholars and practitioners. And although the concept of the model hasn't changed at all, it does look a little funkier with a 'lick of paint'. The model still communicates with a simplicity that belies the revolutionary nature of what it was at the time.  It looks obvious with hindsight that of course we haven't got a crystal ball and the world changes so where we end up is a combination of where we were heade...
Read more

Double Hermeneutic

I came across this term (pronounced 'her men you tic') in my strategic management PhD travels and was quite intrigued by it as it's both simple (despite its name) and very enlightening.  Hopefully I'll do the simple part justice here!!!! It was coined by  Anthony Giddens , a famous British sociologist, and it reveals a major difference in the way we should (stress on the should) theorise about the natural world versus our social world and of particular interest to me, theories about how we should manage people. In essence, a theory about our natural world has no impact on the natural world which remains the same no matter what we think.  For example it was previously thought that the world was flat (and yes there are some of you still out there) but that didn't change the shape of the earth which remained a sphere (oh yes it is).  This is a single hermeneutic. However in the social sciences this isn't the case and, if for example...
Read more

If planning is everything, Maybe its nothing.

A blog back on my subject area, strategic planning or strategic management to use the correct term for the academic field. I have been reading an interesting article entitled 'If planning is everything, Maybe its nothing' written back in 1973 by Aaron Wildavsky.  It is almost a fore runner to one of the largest debates in strategic management, whether strategy should be planned and deliberate or it emerges naturally as part of general management activities. The article makes some very interesting points but it does read a little gloomily as though Mr Wildavsky hasn't got a lot of time for planners in general.  His particular interest is planning in the 3rd world (although it wasn't called the 3rd world then) and he observes that in amongst all the money poured into formal plans and planning, the results have been pretty disappointing. It raises another interesting argument/point and that is the difference between the plan and the outcomes.  He appears to be a...
Read more