Most leaders believe two heads are better than one—until they have to pay for the second head.
When budgets tighten, organizations instinctively eliminate what appears to be redundant. Duplicate reports are consolidated. Parallel efforts are combined. Independent teams are merged. From an operational perspective, the logic seems sound. But this paradigm is inconsistent with an allocentric organization, where meeting customer demand is far more important than optimizing operational efficiencies.
In my recent Executive Brief, Seeing Isn’t Understanding, I explained that organizations often mistake their interpretation of reality for reality itself. Improving perception certainly matters, but better strategic decisions ultimately depend on improving interpretation. So how do you actually improve an organization’s ability to interpret reality?
One practical approach is to design an organization that intentionally encourages Concurrent Independent Sensing before arriving at a shared conclusion. Rather than relying on a single group to determine what the organization should believe, multiple analyses are performed using the same observations. Each analysis develops an independent explanation of what the information means before being exposed to competing interpretations. Only then are those independent interpretations brought together and synthesized into a collective understanding.
At first glance, this approach may seem inefficient because several analyses appear to be performing the same work. In reality, organizations routinely embrace this idea in other disciplines. Engineers often use Parallel Design to explore multiple solutions to the same problem before selecting the strongest approach. Concurrent Independent Sensing applies the same principle to strategic interpretation.
The first step is establishing the right organizational belief. Organizations operating in complex environments should recognize that the value created through independent interpretation often exceeds the cost of sustaining what initially appears to be redundant analysis. Without that belief, Concurrent Independent Sensing will almost certainly be viewed as unnecessary overhead rather than a strategic capability.
Organizations operating in complex environments should recognize that the value created through independent interpretation often exceeds the cost of sustaining what initially appears to be redundant analysis.
Once those beliefs are established, the next step is to design a workflow that is consistent with them. The workflow begins by probing the organization’s external environment to continuously gather strategically salient observations. Those observations are then subjected to Concurrent Independent Sensing, where multiple analyses are performed in parallel using the same information. Each analysis develops an interpretation independently so that patterns and explanations emerge unencumbered by competing viewpoints.
The results are then brought together through Collective Sensing, where the independent interpretations are compared, challenged, refined, and synthesized into the organization’s most defensible understanding of reality. Only then does the organization respond, taking action based on its collective interpretation.
Probe → Concurrent Independent Sensing → Collective Sensing → Respond
With the culture established and the workflow defined, the organizational structure becomes largely an implementation decision. One practical implementation would be to establish a centralized probing capability, two or three Concurrent Independent Sensing Teams working in parallel, and a response team responsible for presenting synthesized recommendations to leadership. The specific structure is less important than preserving the independence of interpretation before convergence occurs.
Like every organizational capability, Concurrent Independent Sensing Teams don’t operate in isolation. Their effectiveness ultimately depends on how they are reinforced by the organization’s broader design. This approach won’t be appropriate for every organization. Stable, predictable environments may not justify the additional investment. But organizations operating in complex environments face a different challenge. Their greatest risk is premature convergence on what they believe the information means. Organizations spend enormous effort improving what they observe. They should invest just as much effort improving how they interpret what they observe.
The next time your leadership team discusses an important strategic issue, resist the temptation to begin with open discussion. Instead, ask each participant to independently write down their interpretation of the same information before anyone shares an opinion. Once everyone has finished, compare the interpretations and discuss where they differ before working toward a shared conclusion. My guess is that the results will surprise you.
0 Comments