Seeing the Bigger Picture: Widening the Aperture for Organizational Performance

By David C Forman

Organizations have a vision problem.? They are nearsighted and see very little beyond the obvious and short-term consequences of their actions.? It is hardly surprising, then, that many organizations are less agile, responsive, and effective than they should be, and perhaps more seriously, are likely to misjudge the future.?

When analyzing the performance of businesses, nonprofits, governmental and community agencies, there is a tendency to focus on specific and immediate business goals. ??Examples of such goals might be:? Improving employee experience, enhancing customer loyalty, lessening response time, minimizing supply chain disruptions, reducing errors, increasing the number of customers/clients/patients, streamlining costs, or improving revenues by a greater percentage than last year.? Depending on the organization’s priorities, these goals can be critical to an organization’s success. ?

The strength of these goals, however, is also their weakness:? They focus on desired outcomes, not the full spectrum of what might actually occur.? In times of stability and predictability, there may be little risk in distinguishing desired from actual outcomes; but in a turbulent, interconnected, and uncertain world the risks are considerably greater and more consequential.

The Lexicon of Consequences

There are a variety of ways to portray the consequences of organizational initiatives.? Among the useful distinctions are:? intended/unintended, anticipated/unanticipated, probable/possible, main effects/side effects, the seen/unseen, visible/invisible, and more than likely/or a remote chance to occur. The essence of these distinctions is that the former option narrows down choices to a few that will probably be meaningful; while the latter attempts to describe the full array of consequences that might occur.? The former approach involves prioritization and judgment (deciding what is likely to occur) that can present a distorted and incomplete picture.?

The problem with the latter approach is that it is difficult to think about unanticipated consequences of actions because they can be hard to fathom.? Consider these examples from around the world.? Centuries ago, the British government was concerned about the presence of venomous snakes in India.? Its solution was to offer a bounty for every dead snake.? This plan worked fine until entrepreneurs began to breed and raise cobras for the bounty, thereby dramatically increasing the number of these deadly vipers.? Woops.? Or, that the introduction of rabbits in Australia as a source of food made sense, until the rabbits multiplied beyond wildest expectations and overran the Outback.? Or, that protections for domestic steel production in the United States led to more expensive U.S- manufactured cars, which, in turn, opened new opportunities for global car companies and nearly led to the demise of iconic companies such as Ford and General Motors.?

Consider a more contemporary example.? Social media applications have dramatically impacted the way we work, live, and interact.? The intended effects of social media apps are laudatory:? providing an electronic town hall for freedom of expression, enabling people to connect beyond their immediate circle of acquaintances, quickly sharing experiences and actions to reaffirm contact and learn from experiences, instilling a sense of community across boundaries, providing a platform for immediate sharing of fast-breaking events and unfiltered reactions, launching new business and market opportunities, and opening horizons for people who may not have been able to pursue other opportunities.? Doubtlessly there are more positive consequences that could be described.

But this is not the complete picture.? Social media can also lead to mild or extreme dysfunction, including actions that threaten established norms and civil behavior.? It starts with the core business purpose of social media applications:? Keeping as many people as possible on the site, returning to the site, and using the site as a launching platform so that advertisers (or others) have exposure to them.? The stickier the platform, the better.? The ways to keep people coming back (and stuck) are largely 1) quick and easy ways to virtually connect, communicate, share, and express information and preferences, and 2) building a platform for personal, unique or sensational information that often feeds on people’s interests, insecurities, or even fears. While the former goal is more beneficial than the latter, they both have unintended consequences, including:? people literally addicted to their mobile devices, social interactions limited to quick phrases and emojis, snap judgements being made on superficial justifications, acceptance of biased information in lieu of legitimate facts and news, and the formation of shallow communities based on popular self- interests or common fears.? These impacts, especially for the young and impressionable, can be significant.

The main point is that social media is a compelling example of not anticipating the unintended consequences that might occur--even for popular and well-intentioned initiatives--and being remiss in taking corrective action in a timely fashion.? Clearly, if the effort is not made to foresee far-reaching (and seemingly remote) possibilities, then these stories, with their often-painful consequences, are repeated, again and again.

There are also significant personal/psychological factors that restrict a person’s vision.? Leaders within organizations are subject to “Confirmation Bias,” which means they often see just what they want to see. ?Our brain seeks less-strenuous paths or shortcuts (heuristics) over time.? It is easy to settle just for anticipated consequences and, therefore, confirm what was expected.? It requires more energy, skill, curiosity, and attention for people to see a fuller and unfamiliar picture.? If is literally hard work to anticipate the unforeseen.

Intentional actions and perseverance are required to overcome both organizational and personal tendencies to see what the future might be. Leading economists and social scientists have long recognized this fact, but it has been largely been ignored by the business world until very recently.

Changing the Aperture:? Asking Two Tough Questions

There are several practical steps that can be taken to open the aperture, see the bigger picture, recognize both the seen and unseen consequences of organizational actions, and gain a clearer picture of what the future might become.? These steps require taking the blinders off and having a mindset that looks beyond probabilities to a fuller range of possibilities.?

1.???? “What Might Happen?”

Unintended business and organizational impacts can be discerned if we are diligently dedicated to finding them. ?Mortensen and Edmondson (2023), for example, cite a recent Microsoft study that remote work, so necessary because of the pandemic, has made work relationships more siloed and has resulted in reduced collaboration among colleagues.? These impacts were not intended but are side effects that could have been readily anticipated and then proactively addressed if imagined.?

Another example of the difference between stated and actual consequences is the legacy of Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric from 1981 to 2001 (Gellen, 2022).? In the name of improving productivity and shareholder value, Welch embarked on a series of actions that maximized shareholder value by: ?implementing a rank and yank performance review process, supporting high executive compensation, introducing severe cutbacks, changing core capabilities from manufacturing to financial services, employing extensive outsourcing, and making poor short-term acquisitions.? Together these consequences destroyed a once iconic company, lost 250,000 jobs, decimated financial and growth opportunities for workers, and promoted a flawed corporate model that others tried to emulate for years.? The “seen picture” for Jack Welch was short-term financial success, while the far more consequential “unseen picture” was a company that lost its way and became a shadow of its former self.? Thomas Edison would not have been pleased.

Thinking of the spectrum of possibilities takes a bit of fantasy, curiosity, creative projection, relationship imagining, systems thinking, and acceptance that any idea is worth considering.? It means having the fortitude and conviction to continue asking “what else might happen,” rather than settling for obvious and predictable responses.? It also requires understanding the range of economic, political, and social factors that may affect and result from purposeful actions.? While not easy to acquire, these skills and abilities can all be developed and honed over time.

2.???? “Who Might Be Impacted?”

It is usually easier to identify the who than the what of unseen performance impacts. There is a limited set of audience possibilities beyond the usual choices of shareholders and company leaders.? These include customers, partners, suppliers, contributors, investors, stakeholders, employees, contract workers, competitors, community members, and even citizens.? In businesses, the interests of investors and shareholders are often the first priority while other groups are overlooked or considered less consequential.? The example of the priorities of Jack Welch’s GE reign are illustrative:? Investors and executives made a lot of money while customers, employees, partners and community members suffered other consequences.

The next step is to segment audiences to discover if there are subgroup differences that matter.? The differences, for example, among new, existing, or returning customers can be very insightful. ?Likewise, the subgroup variations among employees, community members, partners, and competitors should be articulated so that a fuller picture of possible consequences can be recognized.

Coming Attractions:? Greater Emphasis on Unanticipated Impacts and Underrepresented Groups

Businesses and organizations have been slow to react to the unanticipated impacts of actions.? Traditions and incentives, as one might expect, are aligned to immediate and obvious priorities and to powerful groups of people.? But these trends may be changing.?

Public Pressure for Organizational Outcomes Beyond Financial Results. This pressure is predicated on the belief that organizations should be judged, not just on their financial achievements and intended impacts, but on the full range of their behavior and consequences.? This pressure comes from activist investors, proactive board members, thought leaders, ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) proponents, and the public in general.? ??The pressure gets ratcheted when, for example, ESG standards are converted into measures, indexes, and certifications.? The Dow Jones Sustainability Index, for example, is one measure that compares different organizations on these performance standards.? What gets measured gets noticed.

There is also pressure that emanates from the public push for organizations to be judged by multiple bottom lines, not just financial ones.? This pressure comes from community members, citizens, and most importantly employees.? Employees want to work for organizations that stand for something beyond a paycheck; they want to make a difference to the larger community.

Legal Pressure:? Compliance and Regulations. ??Beyond public pressure for organizational performance to extend beyond one bottom line, there are laws and regulations that require accountability and compliance for all, not just some,? consequences. ??Many of these laws are clear cut and widely supported, especially those that impact public health, safety, and well-being.

Consider the case of prescription drugs.? The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) requires that drug companies advertise all the benefits, side effects, and risks of drugs so that the public is informed and knowledgeable.? Today it seems as if every third or fourth ad on TV is about prescription drugs, and usually the list of side effects is several times longer and seemingly more serious than the cure itself.? ?The wisdom of paying attention to side effects is becoming more widely accepted by the general public.

Compliance and regulations can also be applied, if the political will is strong enough, to organizational behavior that may negatively impact the values and principles of a democratic society. ?In the economic sphere, a key democratic principle is providing a level commercial playing field so that all organizations, (whether big or small, powerful, or not) have the same chance to compete and succeed. The regulations governing a free and open competitive environment are the province of Antitrust law.? Once a rather esoteric pursuit, Antitrust law is now at the center of debates about democratic principles, competition, equal opportunities, innovation, and fairness. And once again, the crux of this debate is the difference between anticipated outcomes of business transactions and what may actually occur.

Antitrust issues are complex and will be resolved in the courts as they should be. But there is no question that arguments for a more complete picture are gaining ascendency.? Legal rationales that may have been sufficient in the past—such as greater efficiencies or consumer cost savings—are subject to more in-depth analysis, stronger alignment to the standard of free and open competition, greater consistency with the law, and a clearer articulation of groups impacted.

There are many factors that restrict the picture that we see when analyzing organizational performance:? Remember the lessons from rabbits, snakes, Jack Welch, people looking at their phones while have dinner together, knowing the risks of prescription drugs, and anticipating consequences for the merged and acquired. ?The best way to see the bigger picture is to be curious. ask in-depth questions about what might occur and to whom, and don’t settle for stock answers.?

The Next Step:? Taking Action on the Manageable Few

While the majority of this discussion has focused on thinking differently about the bigger picture of organizational performance (because it is such a significant issue), it is also necessary to do something different.? It is difficult, if not impossible, to plan for and take action on every possibility that might occur.? For complex issues there may be ten, fifteen, or twenty possibilities to address.? It is unrealistic to plan for so many possibilities, so paradoxically, what is required is the direct opposite of the necessary steps to see the bigger picture:? It is now time to focus, narrow the scope, and take action.

But this winnowing should only be done after the full picture has been delineated. There are two guidelines that can help to narrow possibilities.? First, there may be the urge to reduce the list too narrowly so only two or three outcomes or side effects are considered.? This runs the risk of only seeing the obvious or anticipated outcomes as discussed previously. Instead, consider a higher number of outcomes, probably in the 5 to 8 range:? Enough to ensure a wider representation but not too many options to impede action.

Second, use a decision-making framework to help systematically narrow the possibilities to the desired number.? These decisions should not be made casually, but rather they need to follow a logical structure and set of criteria.? It is important to be able to explain the choices and prioritization that have been made.? One useful framework is to array likelihood of occurrence by strength of impact.?

It is not unrealistic to have 20 different possible consequences of an action; these can then be arrayed based on impact and probability of occurring.? It would be impractical to prepare for all twenty so this framework can be used to identify a significant few consequences that can be addressed and possibly ameliorated.? The decision criteria embodied in this framework is to first highlight significant impact and then consider those most likely to occur.?

Final Words

The fundamental difference between seeing what is intended and what might happen may seem small and even trivial, but it is not.? It is often the difference between being a useful and capable team member, leader, or colleague; and an extraordinary one.? A person who sees the unseen provides a level of understanding and wisdom that is unusual.? It helps individual, colleagues and organizations “see around corners” and attain a level of readiness for the uncertain future ahead.? ?

It is not only vital to see and understand the bigger picture, but to act on it.? To do so, the focus must be narrowed to a manageable number of consequences.? These decisions should be made systematically, preferably using a decision-making framework, so that the justification for being part of the “significant few” can be clearly communicated and even challenged or appealed if contested.

Organizations are responsible for all or their actions, whether intended or not. So, let’s open the aperture, let more light in, and understand the full range of possible consequences. The great juror, Louis Brandeis, made this famous statement over a century ago. “Sunlight is the best of disinfectants.”? So it is.?

Another great American, Dwight Eisenhower, in the midst of launching the biggest military action in history, said “Plans are worthless, but planning is everything.”??? In the fog of war, plans are often obsolete as fast as they are published.? But the planning process of first seeing the bigger picture clearly and completely and then narrowing the focus in a systematic fashion to the “critical few” is priceless.? Circumventing this process and sequence only leads to incomplete pictures, hazy resolutions, poor decisions, and missed opportunities, no matter the venue or context.

?