Action Bias vs. Strategic Patience: Addendum to „Manage by Numbers? – Why Quantification Doesn‘t Work for GR“
In „Manage by Numbers?“ I argued that quantification does not work well for GR, mainly because all available metrics refer to output rather than outcomes – therefore setting incentives to do more of the stuff that can be tracked – not necessarily the same as doing the right thing.
I would like to extend this argument: Quantification of GR infuses a bias towards action – „doing something“ – that can actually be harmful to the goals of the company.
Why can it be a problem? GR operates in a highly complicated environment of networks, political dynamics, media attention, and internal constraints. Timing is as important as nuances in messaging or approaches to policy-makers. GR is able to play different instruments: Sometimes it needs to be a subtle approach, sometimes it‘s good to be bold and outspoken.
My fear is that a quantified GR approach has a direct negative influence on strategic capabilities of GR. „Strategic capabilities“ is the ability to choose freely from all available modi operandi, including – hold your breath – doing nothing.
The case for strategic patience
Considering „doing nothing“ a strategic intervention usually raises eyebrows. „Selling it“ internally is often very difficult: Why do we have GR in the first place if they do nothing, in the end?!“ is an argument you might be confronted with.
However, there is plenty of evidence that „doing nothing“ is pretty often a very good strategy. At HP, during a major challenge related to dramatic shifts the „geotech“ sphere, we referred to this as „strategic patience“ – I still like this term. I recently came across another when listening to Tim Harfords „Cautionary Tales“ podcast: „Masterly inactivity“.
To be clear: Strategic patience or „masterly inactivity“ does not mean indifference. It is a carefully selected strategic response to a challenge that you have well understood. „Masterly analysis“ comes before masterly inactivity, for sure.
But why is strategic patience so hard to sell? Because we as individuals and organizations often have an „action bias“. The last thing you want to introduce to your organization is a management tool that comes with a built-in bias that might prevent you from doing the right thing.
In conclusion, inducing an action bias into GR is a risk to good strategizing. Protecting the GR organization from this bias is a GR management task. Adding a quantifiable framework, based on counting activities, does not help – it actually harms. Being aware of your own biases is the first step to avoid wrong decision-making. An open conversation within your internal GR stakeholder group about action bias and why GR needs to be able to „do nothing“ might be a good idea.
