Why strategists are both dependent and independent

We like to see the world as black or white: something either is, or isn’t. But black and white definitions are the first step to create our own bubble. As someone living in London, I constantly need to remind myself that not everyone lives in a city with eight million people and access to expensive (ahem, premium) coffee shops. Before moving here, my bubble was far more local, so you could argue I just swapped one bubble for another.

We all do this. The liberals among us believe most people obviously think like a liberal. The same with conservatives. And if they don't, it's our job to convince them of what's right. Whatever we support, we need certainty around our worldview, because the world feels uncertain as it is. However, there’s always a moment when we might consider the other side is onto something too. This is the essence of being open minded. It’s also the essence of looking at certainty and uncertainty as things that can coexist.

“We usually think that if something is not one, it is more than one; if it is not singular, it is plural. But in actual experience, our life is not only plural, but also singular. Each one of us is both dependent and independent.” – Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind

How can something be both singular and plural? How can someone be both dependent and independent? Surely at some point we need to make up our mind. We can participate in a group (making us ‘plural’) or follow our own path (becoming ‘singular’). We can lead a conversation (as an ‘independent’ voice) or we follow it (making us ‘dependent’ of what everyone else is saying). We either have a plan of action of we don’t. It seems hard to reconcile both.

The issue is not at the point of decision, but at the point of discussion. Strategy is sacrifice, and in the end something’s got to give. But this doesn’t mean throughout the process everything becomes an either/or situation. Effective and creative solutions have different dimensions to them, and there are many ways to solve a problem.

Discussing strategy is fascinating, especially if someone already formed a point of view. Once you made up your mind, the conversation becomes dualistic. Either you’re right and someone’s wrong, or someone is right and you’re wrong. But until we have an agreement on what the verdict is, we’re both right and wrong at the same time. Boom – Schr?dinger’s strategy. Only time (and testing) will tell. And sometimes we’re both wrong.

Sometimes, ego gets in the way and we want others to depend on our own perspective. Other times, politics kick in and no matter how much proof we have, we don't get our way because we’re outnumbered or outranked. In these situations, our solution is but one of possible solutions, and we never know until we make something of it. That’s why strategy is practical in its nature, and some choose prototypes over PowerPoint.

A strategist’s job isn’t always to get to the right answer. Sometimes it’s more useful to remove ourselves from the centre of the conversation. In that position, we’re not creator as much as orchestrator, another individual who can contribute to the outcome not through sparks of genius but by making the process as lubricated as possible. That comes with thoughts, references, guidelines, things to help others think on their own. For all the independent thinking we provide in the room, we always depend on everyone else buying into it. At our best, we’re both dependent and independent.

Originally published on Salmon Theory. Each week, I explore what the world's philosophies can teach the world of strategy. Sign up for first dibs here.