Exploring Alternative Perspectives for Better Decision-Making
In 2004, while working as regional director of Michigan's Small Business Development Centers (MiSBDC), I attended a training with futurist Joel Barker*. Joel is a seminal figure in the recent history of business strategy. He coined the phrase "paradigms of business" to succinctly explain how businesses can get stuck in the ruts of reasoning. Joel borrowed the premise from scientific research and applied it to his experience working with organizations in strategy development. Joel Barker's Implications Wheel™ is a tool and system of thought designed to push us beyond comfortable paradigms and explore multiple possible outcomes of a strategic question. (*Please see note at the end of the article.)
I worked with Joel for almost a decade, traveling the world and applying the Implications Wheel™ to large and small problems with stunning results. We worked with the US Army on scenario planning, the CDC, and the University of Notre Dame on imagining potential outcomes of an H1N1 bird flu pandemic (15 years before COVID). In the fall of 2005, we helped the state of Louisiana imagine a post-Katrina recovery with the input of hundreds of residents from the worst-stricken parishes. The lessons I learned working with Joel helped me see strategic problem-solving differently. So, as I designed the Predictive Mastery course, I knew I had to include The Implications Wheel™ and other methods of finding and using alternative points of view as an integral part of the program.
In Part 5 of this series, we'll investigate the neuroscience of diverse perspectives in decision-making.
The Neuroscience Behind Multiple Perspectives
Our brains are incredible but imperfect decision-making machines. Research in neuroscience shows that our decision-making process involves a dynamic interplay between the fast, intuitive System 1 and the slower, more deliberative System 2—the dual-process theory popularized by Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow (2001). We examined Kahneman's work in Parts 3 and 4 of this series. While System 1 helps us make quick judgments using mental shortcuts, it's also prone to cognitive biases such as confirmation and anchoring. Engaging multiple perspectives forces our brains into System 2 mode, encouraging a more reflective and balanced evaluation of choices. Overcoming these biases is a crucial step in making more informed decisions.
Today, we're jumping into the fascinating world of gaining alternative points of view to enhance our decision-making. Tapping into diverse perspectives can be a game-changer in a world where our brains are hardwired to favor familiar patterns and shortcuts. In this post, we'll explore several popular systems—including Six Thinking Hats, the Implications Wheel, the Diversity Lever Model, Equity-Based Consensus, World Café, the Delphi Model, and Liberating Structures—and how they help counter inherent biases using insights from neuroscience, psychology, and brain science. It's a journey of discovery that promises to enrich our understanding of decision-making.
The Implications Wheel
Joel Barker's Implications Wheel™ is a straightforward yet powerful tool that maps out the ripple effects of a decision or event. Joel was fond of using 'strategic exploration' to describe a necessary but often forgotten element in planning. 'Strategic Exploration is what you do before you plan,' he said. With his Implications Wheel™ process, participants start with a central idea and brainstorm its direct implications, then explore the subsequent layers of secondary and tertiary consequences. This method encourages large, diverse groups to look beyond the immediate (obvious) effects and consider long-term outcomes, effectively challenging our natural tendency to focus on what's immediately visible. For instance, in a business context, the Implications Wheel™ can help foresee the potential impacts of a new product launch or a change in company policy. Doing so promotes a more profound analysis that can counter the narrow focus of confirmation bias. Joel's attention to creating rules to follow while using The Implications Wheel™ sets this process apart from similar-looking tools.
Six Thinking Hats
One of the most well-known methods for exploring different perspectives is Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats. This technique invites participants to 'wear' different hats—each representing a distinct mode of thinking. For instance, in a marketing strategy meeting, the white hat could focus on facts and figures about the target audience, the red on feelings and intuitions about the brand, and the green on creativity and alternatives for the campaign. By systematically exploring a problem from multiple angles, this method helps break the cycle of habitual thinking. It mitigates biases that arise when we lean too heavily on one way of thinking. Six Thinking Hats is a practical tool that aligns well with our understanding of how diverse neural circuits engage when we shift cognitive gears. DeBono emphasized that the process takes some commitment. There are rules to follow that make Six Thinking Hats work best. Some people take the easy way out and assume they can assign an individual to represent each hat in succession. While it sounds efficient and reasonable, DeBono warns, 'that approach will not create the diversity of opinions we're looking for.' He stresses that to get the best results, all group members should represent each hat, one at a time. This process ensures the broadest possible set of opinions. It takes some commitment but is very effective.
Diversity Lever Model
The Diversity Lever Model is all about harnessing the power of varied experiences, backgrounds, and perspectives. This approach recognizes that our personal and cultural lenses can significantly shape our decision-making. Organizations can tap into a wealth of insights that might get missed by intentionally incorporating a broad spectrum of viewpoints. Neuroscience research suggests that diverse groups often outperform homogeneous ones because they stimulate more complex neural processing and creative problem-solving, leading to more innovative solutions.
Equity-Based Consensus
Equity-based consensus ensures that every voice is heard and valued in decision-making. This method focuses on creating a fair and inclusive environment where decisions are reached through balanced discussion rather than domination by a few. It's particularly effective in reducing groupthink—a common cognitive bias where dissenting opinions get suppressed. However, implementing this method can be challenging, especially in larger groups or in cultures where hierarchical decision-making is the norm. By actively involving diverse participants and fostering equitable dialogue, this approach enriches the decision process and builds trust and commitment among team members.
World Café
The World Café is a conversational process designed to foster open dialogue and connect ideas from different people in an informal setting. Small groups discuss topics around a table, and participants rotate, sharing insights with new groups. This format encourages the free flow of ideas and enables participants to encounter perspectives they might not have considered otherwise. By promoting cross-pollination of thoughts, the World Café helps overcome individual biases and creates a more holistic view of complex issues.
Delphi Model
The Delphi Model takes a more structured approach by gathering insights from experts through a series of anonymous questionnaires. Over multiple rounds, participants review summaries of the group's feedback and revise their opinions until consensus. This iterative process minimizes the influence of dominant personalities and reduces the impact of cognitive biases such as conformity or anchoring. The Delphi Model provides a balanced, well-rounded view of challenging decisions by relying on collective intelligence and systematic feedback.
Liberating Structures
In 2021, I flew to Washington, DC, to attend a two-day certification training hosted by Lee Gimple of Better Meetings on the Liberating Structures methodology. Often referred to as LS, Liberating Structures breaks away from traditional meeting formats, encouraging everyone—from the most outspoken to the quietest—to contribute their perspectives. By creating space for genuine dialogue and collaboration, Liberating Structures help counteract the brain's natural tendency to stick to familiar patterns. This approach not only democratizes the decision-making process but also harnesses the power of collective insight to produce more robust outcomes. LS provides a library of facilitation techniques and tools for any meeting. The training teaches the process as a menu of tools and how and when to use them for the best outcomes.
Scenario Planning
Scenario planning is a comprehensive tool for analyzing a decision or project's intended and unintended outcomes. Furthermore, facilitators help participants examine multiple trajectories and points of view. Standard planning techniques usually imagine what it might take to accomplish the singular goal. Scenario planning starts with the same premise but adds the secondary question, "but what if?" That question might sound like, "What if we accomplish this goal in six months versus a year?" or "What if a new federal regulation stands in the way of licensing the project?" The secondary questions can feature positive and negative connotations. This multifaceted view attempts to minimize biases that get in our way. The truth is often buried in plain sight behind biases and assumptions in business. Scenario planning, while time-consuming, can help paint a much more complete picture of the decision you're about to make. Questions that might lead scenario planning sessions:
Rather than "Should we invest in AI? In scenario planning, we would ask,
"What might happen if we invest in AI for our business?"
Rather than "should we allocate x amount of troops to ___________?" We would ask, "What are the downstream implications of allocating x troops to _________?
Rather than asking, "Should we apply more resources to this new project?" We would ask,
"What happens if we assign the director of marketing to manage a new project?"
The foundation of scenario planning is asking the right questions. Then, we must provide the time and resources necessary to analyze the questions thoroughly.
In 2006, while working with the University of Notre Dame's Executive MBA program (eMBA), I was tasked with conducting a massive scenario plan for the potential of H1N1 Bird Flu becoming a pandemic. This project took place fifteen years before COVID-19. We traveled the country, gathering input from hundreds of stakeholder groups. We wanted to have as many diverse voices as possible. One of the fascinating discoveries in that plan was that upon reaching pandemic levels, there would be an almost immediate scarcity of N95 masks for the public to purchase. That allowed leaders to imagine potential mitigating tactics like asking big box home stores and hospitals to keep extra inventory in stock, just in case perpetually. Does this sound like a familiar story?
In another project, a rural community college asked me to create a scenario plan to examine the potential outcomes of becoming a four-year university. While the question seemed straightforward, what bubbled to the surface was a cultural potential they hadn't considered. Was the community ready to support the racially diverse academic staff needed to become a four-year school? Ouch! That hurt to hear, but it was a reality they took to heart for all the right reasons. Seeing that potential allowed them to consider intermediate steps to prepare the college and the community better. It's an outcome that taking a shorter path to their decision wouldn't have uncovered.
Scenario planning is a powerful tool to help your organization peer into the future before committing resources.
Final Thoughts
It would be disingenuous of me not to acknowledge the current controversy regarding diversity programs and their efficacy. Simply put, there's a lot of misinformation out there. As always, I will rely on science to inform my own decisions. The evidence is clear from the perspective of neuroscientists, psychologists, and business strategists that diverse groups perform better. The more diverse perspectives that attend to a problem or question, the more accurate their predictions will be. (HBR, 2016).
"People from diverse backgrounds might actually alter the behavior of a group's social majority in ways that lead to improved and more accurate group thinking." Rock, D. and Grant, H. (HBR, 2016)
Incorporating alternative points of view is essential for making better decisions. Whether it's through the creative shifts of Six Thinking Hats, the cascading insights of the Implications Wheel, the diversity focus of the Diversity Lever Model, or the inclusive dialogue fostered by Equity-Based Consensus, World Café, Delphi, and Liberating Structures—each method provides a unique way to challenge our inherent biases. By engaging multiple perspectives, we activate more of our brain's decision-making faculties, encouraging a blend of both intuitive and analytical thinking. This natural balancing enhances our ability to arrive at well-informed decisions and helps build resilient, innovative solutions in a rapidly changing world.
Embrace these techniques, broaden your horizons, and watch your decision-making transform. Happy exploring, and here's to making more thoughtful, balanced daily choices!
References
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Wikipedia
De Bono, E. (1985). Six Thinking Hats. Little, Brown and Company.
Barker, J. (1993) Paradigms - The Business of Discovering the Future. Harper Business
Rock, D. and Grant, H., (2016) Why Diverse Teams Are Smarter (HBR, 2016)The World Cafe' Method. World Café
Liberating Structure. Liberating Structures, Better Meetings
https://bettermeetings.expert/
Rock, D. and Grant, H., (2016) Why Diverse Teams Are Smarter (HBR, 2016)
You can find further reading on decision-making frameworks and cognitive biases on HBR's website, Harvard Business Review.
NOTE:
While editing this article, a former colleague informed me that Joel Barker died on January 4, 2025. I remember our first meeting when he handed me his business card. It was a traditional text-based card that read, "Joel Barker—Futurist." I looked at him, a bit befuddled, and asked, "How did you get a title like that?" Joel looked back, unmoved, and said, "I know things about the world that you can't see yet."
Indeed, he did. Future on, Joel!
Stay Awesome!
http://www.predictivemastery.com/
As a result of my curiosity and a decade or so of research, I've recently launched a new project called Predictive Mastery. This program delves into the art and science of decision-making, where we peel back the layers of how we make decisions, what role our brains play, and how we can use this knowledge to be more confident in the future.
Predictive Mastery also explores scenario planning for large projects. For over two decades, I've helped businesses, governments, and universities apply rigorous approaches to build what-if scenarios. From imagining the potential of post-Katrina Louisana to working with the University of Notre Dame and the CDC to predict the implications of a possible H1N1 bird flu pandemic, structured scenario planning can reveal previously unimagined creative solutions. It dovetails perfectly with this work on decision-making and is now a crucial component of the Predictive Mastery workshop.
Our first Predictive Mastery workshop will be held on March 6, 2025, in Traverse City, Michigan. Click here to view the event page.
The program is in six modules.
STEP 4: Seek Alternative Points of View
STEP 5: Visualize Intention
STEP 6: Create A Bias For Action
Find out more about Precision Mastery and my other programs on the website.