Games Foxes Play. Clem Sunter
look beyond what is said and examine what drives it. To understand a conversation’s peculiarity – its uniqueness of interplay – it is necessary to be aware of the possible sum of the exchanges in the minds of each person around a table. Recording and minuting are not enough. You have to regard conversation not as a series of simple expression of thoughts, but as an intricate series of games. This not only recognises the ‘human-ness’ of conversation and places what is expressed in the correct context, but also facilitates the management of the conversation.
There are two byways into the mind: through conversation (involving active listening) and through reading. In any organisation, communication is via both. Whether it is face-to-face, via teleconference, fax, phone or e-mail, we conduct business through the exchanging of information in written, verbal or nonverbal form. The outcome of such communication is determined through the absorption of the content and interpretation of meaning. Because of the very nature of speaking with people as opposed to reading, say, what they have written, conversation provides better insight. The mind is in a more intuitive state, there’s minimal emphasis on paper, and the views presented are more spontaneous and based on honest experience. Consequently, for an organisation to cope with choice and to achieve more effective decision-making, strategy must be dealt with through conversation. This is a whole lot better than the circulation of long, monotonous documents with appendices containing computer projections lending dubious authenticity to the exercise.
Depending on the spoken word is nothing new. Before formal currencies were established, business transactions took the form of bartering – two goats were worth one sheep, three sheep were worth one cow, and three cows could be exchanged for one wife plus, if you were good at bartering, a keg of ale. Although today currency puts a price on commodities, people still put a value on price. For this reason most business transactions, except those that take place in countries ruled by ruthless dictators, still involve an open exchange of conversation between buyer and seller.
In the third millennium, things haven’t changed all that much. Every day, in our social life and in business, we conduct conversations that fill the ‘space’ between us. The purpose of conversations is essentially twofold – to establish, maintain and develop social bonds; and to communicate ideas with the intention of attaining an outcome. Whereas the first form of conversation is social, the latter is strategic. Of course there are occasions when the two forms of conversation overlap, such as in the mind of a young man chatting up a girl on a first dinner date! Because there is an intended outcome in a strategic conversation, whether it is to secure the last slice of apple pie at a hungry family reunion, or to finalise the merger of two multinationals, the success of the outcome is determined by how the conversation is managed. Continuing the example of the young man on a first date, the outcome of the carefully managed conversation will be measured afterwards in distance from each other on the couch.
Surely a desired outcome that is achieved without a properly managed conversation is still the desired outcome? Maybe so, in the short term. But the long term is about relationships and trust based on handshakes, not lawyers. It makes sense that only a strategic conversation that is properly mastered will lay a secure foundation for such bonds to be forged. How many negotiations have failed because badly managed conversations left value on the table? How many managers have been toppled because they left in their path a wake of conversational debt?
So is such a strategic conversation possible? Yes, if the very factors that challenge strategy over time – increased uncertainty and reduced control – are an integral part of the conversation. This was the essence of the prototype model which we introduced in The Mind of the Fox. We wanted executives to confront the unknown, to accept that we haven’t scraped the surface of the top molecule on the very tip of the iceberg in understanding the world around us. We wanted them to begin the conversation blessed with that essential quality possessed by all true explorers – humility. Not for one minute were we suggesting that they should dive hell for leather into the void offered up by the future. Leaping off a proverbial bridge will only reward a business executive with a new perspective in life if he has a bungee cord tied to his ankles first. Otherwise, he is dead meat.
So what is this bungee cord made of? We venture wisdom. The use of this term is often accompanied by images of a skinny old man in a loincloth with a long silvery-grey beard. He is perched on the steps of a monastery clinging to the slopes of a mountain. Actually, you don’t have to be old or know a lot to be wise. The essence of wisdom lies not so much in knowledge per se, but rather in the manner in which knowledge is put to use. More importantly, wisdom demands a certain scepticism about all claims of knowledge, because more is unknown and uncertain than known and certain. The result is a ceaseless flow of movement between confidence and doubt; and it is this fine line between them that a wise person walks, using logic when he is confident and imagination when he is in the dark.
So we came up with a simple matrix that compelled top management to ask two questions in discussing the future of their business and designing their strategies:
1 What do you and do you not control?
2 What is certain and uncertain about the future?
We started in the bottom right-hand quadrant by asking them to consider the factors beyond their control but certain to govern their lives. We then tested their imagination on key uncertainties which might affect the progress of the company and what scenarios might ensue. We then moved to the control side and stimulated a wide-ranging discussion of options to meet the challenges posed by the scenarios, before asking them to put a stake in the ground on decisions. It worked. Sales of The Mind of a Fox exceeded 50 000 and many companies from leading multinationals to small and medium-sized businesses in South Africa are now using our technique. Like all models, though, we’ve been updating the matrix ever since we introduced it. The purpose of Games Foxes Play is to set the model out in its present form (it is no longer a matrix, as you will see). Before proceeding to describe the latest version, however, we would like to list three likes and dislikes which have driven us to make the adaptations that we have.
Rimless wagon wheels versus circles
Conversation is a game of circles.
RALPH WALDO EMERSON
Strategic workshops can be frustrating, especially if they are run according to the rimless wagon-wheel approach. At the centre of the accompanying figure is a hub representing the CEO plus his or her close confidantes. They represent the cabal. Emanating out of the hub are the spokes, at the ends of which are the business units. The sole purpose of the workshop is for the business unit heads to feed their five-year plans and projections into the central cabal, which acts like a gigantic sponge absorbing this information. The cabal then decides on overall company strategy in a completely separate forum. The business unit heads never get to participate in such a discussion. They merely talk about their own unit’s future. No rim joins them around the periphery because no general conversation takes place on the overall business. They are effectively ‘siloed’.
How far west do you think the pioneers of American frontier life would have got if their wagon wheels had been without rims? They would have got bogged down just outside of Boston. But how many companies adopt this approach because of an autocratic CEO who wants to keep strategy all to himself, or maybe include one or two of his close chums? Plenty!
In contrast, we believe in circles when it comes to effective strategic sessions: conversation circles. For the whole business. We believe that the forward movement of a company into extraordinary times can only be ensured if the direction of the conversation is circular. Each part of the conversation tips into the next part in a fairly seamless manner. So in sessions we facilitate we prefer to have the executive team sitting literally at a round table, with everybody in sight of each other and having an equal voice. Sometimes this requires a cultural change which is hard to imagine. In one company, the CEO was nicknamed ‘the handbrake’ for the dampening