4 Reasons to Think in Scenarios

As many of you know I have the honor of sitting on the board for the Skills Society.  An honor because of what they do and who they support but also because I come in contact with some amazing people and ideas.  Recently we were asked to read What if? The Art of Scenario Thinking for NonProfits.  

Although scenario thinking has been around for decades, its recent use has become increasingly essential in our ever-changing context.  And if you’re hoping the tidal wave of change will soon pass, you will be disappointed. Most of the literature I have been reading (Inc.com, Harvard Business Review, McKinsey Quarterly, Twist Image) indicates the pace of change will only accelerate and consequently become more unpredictable.

As an Executive Director for a not-for-profit organization, how do you determine a strategic direction when the destination you choose today could disappear tomorrow?

Scenario thinking seems to offer a lifeline for our beleaguered Executive Directors because it forces us from the comfort of traditional strategic planning and broadens our thinking beyond the insular confines the status quo.  By encouraging us to think about the present through the prisms of multiple scenarios, it reveals previously unidentified threats and opportunities for the organization.

To be clear, we are not trying to predict the future. Predicting the future makes you a futurist not a strategist.  We are not trying to predict who will win the election, rather we are trying to plan for many possible winners and how it could impact the work being done by the organization.

“Ultimately, the point of scenario thinking is not to write stories of the future.  Rather, it is to arrive at a deeper understanding of the world in which your organization operates, and to use that understanding to inform your strategy and improve your ability to make better decisions today and in the future ” p.9

As a process, scenario planning is outside-in.  It begins by identifying driving forces of the broader environmental context external to the organization (technological, social, economic, political, environmental). At Skills we are constantly having conversations about the threats and opportunities inherent in shifts in the provincial economy.

Next, scenario thinking examines the working environment external to the organization (clients, stakeholders, partners, funders, constituents, customers, competitors, regulators).   One consideration Skills is tracking is the shifting demographics of the clients we serve and the threats and opportunities it could present for service delivery.

Finally, it moves to considering the internal organizational conditions. This means having conversations about ways in which external forces (broader environmental context and working conditions) could influence the organization and how it functions internally.  For Skills, this requires discussions about how the economic realities and client demographics could effect the way the organization delivers services to its clients.

Incidentally, scenario thinking can also be done in the same way for issues or complex problems.


Four Reasons to Think in Scenarios

Setting Strategic Direction: develops a strategic plan that accounts for possible changes in the environment outside the organization or tests your current strategic plan.

Catalyzing Bold Action: inspires and nudges the organization to take bold actions pushing beyond assumptions that reinforce the status quo by …rehearsing diverse and provocative future possibilities-both desirable scenarios you would like to help create and dark scenarios that generate a sense of urgency” p.16

Accelerate Collaborative Learning: uncovers otherwise inconceivable solutions by creating a space for the organization to learn from diverse perspectives.

Alignment and Visioning: forges new relationships by creating a shared understanding of the complexity of the problem resulting in new approaches.


Do your own Outside-in thinking:  

  1. To begin, think of an issue that you feel strongly about fixing but society has not successfully addressed (e.g. poverty, animal abuse, education for gifted students, mental health, addiction, ….)
  2. Draw a column on the left side of the page.  Identify the technological, social, economic, political, and environmental factors in the contextual environment that impact your issue (not meant to be an exhaustive list – just whatever comes to mind).
  3. Draw another column in the center of the page.  Identify the factors (clients, stakeholders, partners, funders, constituents, customers, competitors, regulators) in the working environment that impact your issue (again,  just whatever comes to mind).
  4. Draw a third column on the right and leave it blank.
  5. This is where the activity gets interesting!!  Find someone that has the same level of interest in the issue you have a chosen but you know their approach is quite different from yours. Have them fill in the first two columns for themselves.
  6. Go out for a coffee or a lunch with the other person and fill in the final column together.  Do not vet or debate the ideas- just fill them in together.
  7. Next, notice and discuss where your ideas converge and diverge.  The most important revelations will come from the conversations around where your ideas diverge the greatest.  
  8. Make note of any new ideas or approaches emerging from your conversation.

    Congratulations, you have just done outside-in thinking!!

Podcast Pick: Negotiating with a Liar (Harvard Business Review Ideacast)

Have you ever thought someone might be lying but just couldn’t quite prove it?  Leslie John, of the Harvard Business School, reveals some very practical tips on how to navigate through an interaction with a liar during her interview on the Harvard Ideacast entitled How to Negotiate with a Liar.    

 In my experience, people that are usually honest become ‘liars’ when the stakes are high.  This is especially true when two people are trying to resolve a conflict.  Each person is negotiating the facts with the other to arrive at a resolution that suits their interests.   Think back to the last real conflict you had with someone important to you.  Be honest, did you fib just a little to get your way?  We all lie.   Lies of omission, white lies, boldface lies.  You’re lying to yourself if you think you don’t lie.

To begin, John says to stop trying to catch the liars.  We are not as skilled at catching a liar as we think we are and when we guess right, catching someone in a lie, we have actually moved further from our desired resolution. 

So do I deny myself the rush I get when I triumphantly right the scales of injustice by pointing out the liar in the room?   John would say catching the other person in the lie will only exacerbate the conflict rather than move towards solving it.  

So if I can’t point out that their pants are on fire, what can I do?  

Start by creating a safe space.  If people feel they are safe, they are less likely to lie.   Within that safe space you may get things started by disclosing something about yourself, prompting the other person to reciprocate.   Reciprocal self-disclosure fosters trust and therefore you are less likely to lie to them and they are less likely to lie to you.  It eases both participants into a conversation that has the potential to move them towards a resolution.  

However, there are times in which the other person refuses to participate in disclosures.  If this occurs, John says to try giving the other person a choice between two options of which you are personally impartial. The option they choose will be a disclosure in itself.  Understanding what they need will signal what you can trade with them to arrive at a resolution.

John also tackles the obvious, persistent, recidivist liar.   When confronted with the person addicted to lying, she says to use contingencies.  Allow the lie to pass undetected and instead tie contingencies to a resolution based on their falsehood.  (If you turn out to be wrong, then you will have to work overtime to meet the deadline.)  Usually, the person lying will step back from their lie to avoid the repercussions of a contingency.  It neatly sidesteps the need to be right by placing the emphasis on what happens if the other person is wrong.   

John has a few other tips in the podcast so I encourage you to give it a listen.  

In the interim, for those readers following my Liminal Thinking series, are you able reconcile John’s ideas about lying with Gray’s ideas on beliefs?