ambidextrous-organization

Ambidextrous Organization

An Ambidextrous Organization refers to a business model that skillfully balances the exploitation of existing strengths and efficiencies with the exploration of innovative opportunities. This approach ensures both stability and adaptability, enabling organizations to simultaneously maximize current operations while fostering long-term growth and innovation.

Key Principles

An ambidextrous organization is one that effectively balances exploration and exploitation, enabling it to pursue both incremental improvements to existing capabilities and the exploration of new opportunities and innovations. This dual focus allows ambidextrous organizations to thrive in dynamic and uncertain environments by simultaneously optimizing current operations and preparing for future challenges and opportunities.

  • Exploitation: Exploitation involves maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of existing resources, capabilities, and processes to deliver consistent performance and results. Organizations that excel at exploitation focus on refining and optimizing their core competencies, products, and services to meet current market demands and customer expectations.
  • Exploration: Exploration, on the other hand, involves seeking out new opportunities, technologies, markets, and business models to drive innovation and growth. Organizations that excel at exploration are willing to experiment, take risks, and challenge the status quo in pursuit of breakthrough ideas and opportunities that have the potential to create new sources of value and competitive advantage.
  • Balancing Trade-offs: Ambidextrous organizations recognize the inherent trade-offs between exploitation and exploration and seek to strike a balance between these competing priorities. By effectively managing these trade-offs, ambidextrous organizations can achieve synergy between their current operations and future aspirations, enabling them to adapt and thrive in rapidly changing environments.

Methodologies and Approaches

Building and sustaining ambidextrous capabilities requires a deliberate and systematic approach that integrates exploration and exploitation into the organization’s strategy, structure, processes, and culture.

Structural Ambidexterity

Structural ambidexterity involves creating separate organizational units, teams, or functions dedicated to exploration and exploitation. By segregating these activities, organizations can minimize conflicts and resource constraints and allow each unit to focus on its respective priorities and objectives. Structural ambidexterity enables organizations to leverage specialized capabilities and expertise while ensuring alignment with overall strategic goals and objectives.

Contextual Ambidexterity

Contextual ambidexterity involves integrating exploration and exploitation within the same organizational unit, team, or process. Unlike structural ambidexterity, contextual ambidexterity emphasizes flexibility, adaptability, and responsiveness to changing market conditions and opportunities. Organizations that excel at contextual ambidexterity empower their employees to balance competing priorities and objectives dynamically, based on the specific context and requirements of each situation.

Leadership Ambidexterity

Leadership ambidexterity involves fostering a leadership mindset and behaviors that balance exploration and exploitation. Effective leaders in ambidextrous organizations are visionary yet pragmatic, strategic yet flexible, and decisive yet open-minded. They create a culture of innovation, experimentation, and continuous learning, encouraging employees to challenge assumptions, take calculated risks, and pursue new opportunities while also delivering results and executing with excellence.

Cultural Ambidexterity

Cultural ambidexterity involves cultivating a culture that values and rewards both exploration and exploitation. Ambidextrous cultures encourage collaboration, cross-functional communication, and knowledge sharing, fostering a sense of collective purpose and commitment to organizational goals and objectives. They celebrate successes and failures alike, recognizing that innovation and growth require experimentation and learning from both successes and setbacks.

Benefits of Ambidextrous Organizations

Ambidextrous organizations enjoy several benefits that contribute to their long-term success and sustainability.

  1. Resilience: By balancing exploration and exploitation, ambidextrous organizations are better equipped to adapt and respond to changing market conditions, technological advancements, and competitive pressures. This resilience enables them to thrive in uncertain and volatile environments while minimizing the risk of disruption or decline.
  2. Innovation: Ambidextrous organizations are more likely to generate breakthrough ideas, technologies, and business models that drive innovation and growth. By fostering a culture of exploration and experimentation, these organizations can tap into diverse sources of creativity and expertise, unleashing the full potential of their employees and stakeholders.
  3. Competitive Advantage: Ambidextrous organizations can leverage their dual focus on exploration and exploitation to outperform competitors and capture market opportunities. By continuously refining and expanding their core capabilities while also pursuing new sources of differentiation and value creation, these organizations can strengthen their market position and sustain competitive advantage over the long term.
  4. Adaptability: Ambidextrous organizations are inherently adaptable and agile, enabling them to respond quickly and effectively to emerging threats and opportunities. By embracing change and uncertainty, these organizations can proactively shape their future and seize opportunities for growth and expansion, even in highly dynamic and turbulent environments.
  5. Employee Engagement: Ambidextrous organizations attract and retain top talent by offering stimulating and rewarding work environments that encourage creativity, innovation, and professional development. By empowering employees to contribute their unique perspectives and skills to the organization’s exploration and exploitation efforts, these organizations can foster a sense of ownership, belonging, and fulfillment among their workforce.
  6. Sustainability: Ambidextrous organizations are better positioned to achieve sustainable growth and profitability over the long term. By investing in both exploration and exploitation, these organizations can balance short-term performance with long-term resilience, ensuring their continued success and relevance in an increasingly complex and competitive business landscape.

Challenges in Building Ambidextrous Organizations

Despite the benefits, building and sustaining ambidextrous capabilities is not without its challenges.

  1. Cultural Resistance: Cultural resistance to change and risk-taking can hinder efforts to build an ambidextrous organization. Traditional mindsets, processes, and reward systems may favor stability and predictability over innovation and experimentation, making it difficult to foster a culture of exploration and exploitation.
  2. Resource Constraints: Resource constraints, such as limited funding, time, and expertise, can pose challenges to ambidextrous organizations. Balancing investments between exploration and exploitation requires careful prioritization and allocation of resources, which can be difficult in resource-constrained environments.
  3. Coordination and Alignment: Coordinating and aligning exploration and exploitation activities across different organizational units, functions, and geographies can be challenging. Ensuring consistency, coherence, and collaboration between these activities requires effective communication, coordination, and leadership at all levels of the organization.
  4. Risk Management: Managing the inherent risks associated with exploration and exploitation requires careful planning, monitoring, and mitigation strategies. Organizations must strike a balance between taking calculated risks to pursue new opportunities and minimizing the potential negative impact of failures and setbacks on the organization’s overall performance and reputation.
  5. Leadership Capabilities: Building ambidextrous capabilities requires strong leadership capabilities at all levels of the organization. Leaders must be visionary yet pragmatic, strategic yet flexible, and decisive yet open-minded, capable of inspiring and empowering their teams to embrace change, challenge the status quo, and pursue new opportunities with confidence and conviction.

Strategies for Building Ambidextrous Organizations

To overcome these challenges and build ambidextrous capabilities, organizations can adopt several strategies and best practices.

  1. Visionary Leadership: Establish a clear vision, mission, and purpose that aligns with the organization’s strategic goals and objectives. Leaders must articulate the importance of exploration and exploitation and inspire employees to embrace the ambidextrous mindset and behaviors required for success.
  2. Cultural Transformation: Foster a culture of innovation, experimentation, and continuous learning that values and rewards both exploration and exploitation. Encourage employees to challenge assumptions, take calculated risks, and learn from both successes and failures to drive ongoing improvement and innovation.
  3. Structural Flexibility: Create flexible organizational structures, processes, and systems that enable agility, adaptability, and responsiveness to changing market conditions and opportunities. Break down silos, foster collaboration, and empower employees to collaborate across functional boundaries and contribute their unique perspectives and expertise to the organization’s exploration and exploitation efforts.
  4. Resource Allocation: Develop robust resource allocation mechanisms that balance investments between exploration and exploitation based on strategic priorities, market dynamics, and risk considerations. Allocate resources dynamically, monitor performance, and adjust investments as needed to optimize the organization’s overall performance and competitiveness.
  5. Talent Development: Invest in talent development and capability building to equip employees with the skills, knowledge, and mindset required to succeed in an ambidextrous organization. Provide training, coaching, and mentoring opportunities that enhance employees’ creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration skills, enabling them to contribute effectively to the organization’s exploration and exploitation efforts.
  6. Performance Management: Implement performance management systems that reward and recognize both individual and collective contributions to exploration and exploitation. Align incentives, recognition programs, and career development opportunities with the organization’s strategic goals and values, encouraging employees to prioritize innovation, collaboration, and results-oriented behaviors that drive sustainable growth and competitiveness.

Real-World Examples

Several companies have successfully built and sustained ambidextrous capabilities, demonstrating the effectiveness of various strategies and approaches in driving innovation and growth.

  1. Google: Google is renowned for its ambidextrous approach to innovation, balancing investments between its core search and advertising business (exploitation) and its moonshot projects and ventures in areas such as artificial intelligence, self-driving cars, and renewable energy (exploration). By empowering employees to pursue ambitious and audacious goals while also delivering on core business objectives, Google has sustained its leadership position in the technology industry and diversified its revenue streams over time.
  2. 3M: 3M is another example of an ambidextrous organization that excels at balancing exploration and exploitation. Known for its culture of innovation and creativity, 3M encourages employees to spend a significant portion of their time on research and development activities (exploration) while also delivering on short-term performance targets and objectives (exploitation). This dual focus has enabled 3M to develop and commercialize thousands of innovative products and solutions across a wide range of industries and markets, driving sustainable growth and competitiveness over the long term.
  3. Procter & Gamble (P&G): P&G is a global consumer goods company that has successfully embraced an ambidextrous approach to innovation and growth. By leveraging its extensive research and development capabilities (exploitation) and partnering with external startups, universities, and research institutions (exploration), P&G has been able to develop and launch innovative products and brands that address emerging consumer needs and preferences. Through its “Connect + Develop” program and strategic acquisitions, P&G has expanded its portfolio and market reach, driving sustained growth and market leadership in the highly competitive consumer goods industry.
  4. Apple: Apple is widely recognized for its ambidextrous approach to product innovation and development. While Apple continuously refines and updates its existing product lines, such as the iPhone, iPad, and Mac (exploitation), it also explores new product categories and technologies, such as wearables, augmented reality, and services (exploration). By investing in both core products and emerging opportunities, Apple has maintained its reputation for innovation and design excellence while also diversifying its revenue streams and expanding its ecosystem of products and services.
  5. Amazon: Amazon is another example of an ambidextrous organization that excels at balancing exploration and exploitation. While Amazon continues to optimize and expand its core e-commerce platform and logistics network (exploitation), it also explores new business opportunities and technologies, such as cloud computing (Amazon Web Services), smart home devices (Amazon Echo), and entertainment streaming (Amazon Prime Video) (exploration). By leveraging its scale, resources, and customer insights, Amazon has been able to enter and disrupt multiple industries while also driving sustainable growth and profitability over the long term.

Conclusion

Building and sustaining an ambidextrous organization is essential for long-term success and competitiveness in today’s dynamic and uncertain business environment. By effectively balancing exploration and exploitation, organizations can drive innovation, growth, and resilience while also delivering on short-term performance targets and objectives. Through visionary leadership, cultural transformation, structural flexibility, resource allocation, talent development, and performance management, organizations can cultivate the ambidextrous capabilities required to navigate uncertainty, seize opportunities, and achieve sustainable success over the long term. As organizations continue to evolve and adapt to changing market conditions and customer preferences, building ambidextrous capabilities will become increasingly important for driving innovation-led growth and differentiation in an ever-changing business landscape.

Related FrameworksDescriptionWhen to Apply
Exploitation vs ExplorationDescription: Balances the need to exploit existing capabilities for short-term gains while exploring new opportunities for long-term growth and innovation. Exploitation vs Exploration is relevant in organizational strategy to ensure both efficiency and adaptability.When managing organizational resources to achieve a balance between optimizing current operations and exploring new markets or technologies.
Dynamic CapabilitiesDescription: Refers to an organization’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external resources to adapt to changing environments and sustain competitive advantage. Dynamic Capabilities are essential for organizations to respond effectively to market disruptions and technological advancements.When facing uncertain and turbulent market conditions that require rapid adaptation and innovation to maintain competitiveness.
Organizational LearningDescription: Focuses on the acquisition, sharing, and application of knowledge within an organization to improve performance and foster innovation. Organizational Learning is critical for building adaptive capacity and supporting ambidextrous behavior.When seeking to create a culture of continuous learning and knowledge sharing to enhance organizational agility and innovation capabilities.
Portfolio ManagementDescription: Involves allocating resources across a portfolio of projects or initiatives to optimize risk and return, balancing short-term and long-term objectives. Portfolio Management is relevant for prioritizing investments and aligning them with strategic goals.When managing innovation portfolios and diversifying investments to balance risk and reward, ensuring a mix of exploratory and exploitative projects.
Agile MethodologyDescription: Emphasizes iterative development, collaboration, and customer feedback to deliver value quickly and adapt to changing requirements. Agile Methodology is applicable in project management and product development to support flexibility and responsiveness.When executing projects or initiatives in dynamic and uncertain environments, requiring rapid iteration and adjustment based on customer needs and market feedback.
Strategic FlexibilityDescription: Refers to an organization’s ability to react swiftly to unexpected changes and seize emerging opportunities, often by maintaining a diverse set of strategic options. Strategic Flexibility is essential for navigating uncertainty and ambiguity in the business environment.When operating in volatile markets or industries where conditions are subject to rapid change, necessitating quick decision-making and adaptation of strategies.
Innovation EcosystemDescription: Encompasses the network of organizations, individuals, and institutions that collaborate and interact to foster innovation and create value. Innovation Ecosystems provide resources, knowledge, and support for entrepreneurial activity and organizational learning.When seeking to leverage external partners, such as startups, academia, and industry consortia, to access complementary expertise and accelerate innovation.
Lean InnovationDescription: Applies principles of lean management to innovation processes, emphasizing efficiency, experimentation, and customer validation to minimize waste and maximize value creation. Lean Innovation is useful for accelerating innovation cycles and reducing time to market.When striving to streamline innovation processes and validate ideas quickly and cost-effectively, ensuring alignment with customer needs and market demand.
Digital TransformationDescription: Involves leveraging digital technologies to fundamentally change business processes, operations, and customer experiences, enabling organizations to adapt to digital disruptions and capitalize on new opportunities. Digital Transformation is essential for remaining competitive in the digital age.When undergoing fundamental changes in business models, operations, or customer interactions to leverage digital technologies and stay ahead of competitors in the digital economy.
IntrapreneurshipDescription: Encourages employees to act like entrepreneurs within the organization, pursuing innovative ideas and initiatives that drive innovation and create value. Intrapreneurship fosters a culture of innovation and empowers employees to take ownership of their ideas.When seeking to unleash the entrepreneurial potential of employees and foster a culture of innovation and creativity within the organization.

Connected Thinking Frameworks

Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking

convergent-vs-divergent-thinking
Convergent thinking occurs when the solution to a problem can be found by applying established rules and logical reasoning. Whereas divergent thinking is an unstructured problem-solving method where participants are encouraged to develop many innovative ideas or solutions to a given problem. Where convergent thinking might work for larger, mature organizations where divergent thinking is more suited for startups and innovative companies.

Critical Thinking

critical-thinking
Critical thinking involves analyzing observations, facts, evidence, and arguments to form a judgment about what someone reads, hears, says, or writes.

Biases

biases
The concept of cognitive biases was introduced and popularized by the work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1972. Biases are seen as systematic errors and flaws that make humans deviate from the standards of rationality, thus making us inept at making good decisions under uncertainty.

Second-Order Thinking

second-order-thinking
Second-order thinking is a means of assessing the implications of our decisions by considering future consequences. Second-order thinking is a mental model that considers all future possibilities. It encourages individuals to think outside of the box so that they can prepare for every and eventuality. It also discourages the tendency for individuals to default to the most obvious choice.

Lateral Thinking

lateral-thinking
Lateral thinking is a business strategy that involves approaching a problem from a different direction. The strategy attempts to remove traditionally formulaic and routine approaches to problem-solving by advocating creative thinking, therefore finding unconventional ways to solve a known problem. This sort of non-linear approach to problem-solving, can at times, create a big impact.

Bounded Rationality

bounded-rationality
Bounded rationality is a concept attributed to Herbert Simon, an economist and political scientist interested in decision-making and how we make decisions in the real world. In fact, he believed that rather than optimizing (which was the mainstream view in the past decades) humans follow what he called satisficing.

Dunning-Kruger Effect

dunning-kruger-effect
The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitive bias where people with low ability in a task overestimate their ability to perform that task well. Consumers or businesses that do not possess the requisite knowledge make bad decisions. What’s more, knowledge gaps prevent the person or business from seeing their mistakes.

Occam’s Razor

occams-razor
Occam’s Razor states that one should not increase (beyond reason) the number of entities required to explain anything. All things being equal, the simplest solution is often the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English theologian William of Ockham.

Lindy Effect

lindy-effect
The Lindy Effect is a theory about the ageing of non-perishable things, like technology or ideas. Popularized by author Nicholas Nassim Taleb, the Lindy Effect states that non-perishable things like technology age – linearly – in reverse. Therefore, the older an idea or a technology, the same will be its life expectancy.

Antifragility

antifragility
Antifragility was first coined as a term by author, and options trader Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Antifragility is a characteristic of systems that thrive as a result of stressors, volatility, and randomness. Therefore, Antifragile is the opposite of fragile. Where a fragile thing breaks up to volatility; a robust thing resists volatility. An antifragile thing gets stronger from volatility (provided the level of stressors and randomness doesn’t pass a certain threshold).

Ergodicity

ergodicity
Ergodicity is one of the most important concepts in statistics. Ergodicity is a mathematical concept suggesting that a point of a moving system will eventually visit all parts of the space the system moves in. On the opposite side, non-ergodic means that a system doesn’t visit all the possible parts, as there are absorbing barriers

Systems Thinking

systems-thinking
Systems thinking is a holistic means of investigating the factors and interactions that could contribute to a potential outcome. It is about thinking non-linearly, and understanding the second-order consequences of actions and input into the system.

Vertical Thinking

vertical-thinking
Vertical thinking, on the other hand, is a problem-solving approach that favors a selective, analytical, structured, and sequential mindset. The focus of vertical thinking is to arrive at a reasoned, defined solution.

Metaphorical Thinking

metaphorical-thinking
Metaphorical thinking describes a mental process in which comparisons are made between qualities of objects usually considered to be separate classifications.  Metaphorical thinking is a mental process connecting two different universes of meaning and is the result of the mind looking for similarities.

Maslow’s Hammer

einstellung-effect
Maslow’s Hammer, otherwise known as the law of the instrument or the Einstellung effect, is a cognitive bias causing an over-reliance on a familiar tool. This can be expressed as the tendency to overuse a known tool (perhaps a hammer) to solve issues that might require a different tool. This problem is persistent in the business world where perhaps known tools or frameworks might be used in the wrong context (like business plans used as planning tools instead of only investors’ pitches).

Peter Principle

peter-principle
The Peter Principle was first described by Canadian sociologist Lawrence J. Peter in his 1969 book The Peter Principle. The Peter Principle states that people are continually promoted within an organization until they reach their level of incompetence.

Straw Man Fallacy

straw-man-fallacy
The straw man fallacy describes an argument that misrepresents an opponent’s stance to make rebuttal more convenient. The straw man fallacy is a type of informal logical fallacy, defined as a flaw in the structure of an argument that renders it invalid.

Google Effect

google-effect
The Google effect is a tendency for individuals to forget information that is readily available through search engines. During the Google effect – sometimes called digital amnesia – individuals have an excessive reliance on digital information as a form of memory recall.

Streisand Effect

streisand-effect
The Streisand Effect is a paradoxical phenomenon where the act of suppressing information to reduce visibility causes it to become more visible. In 2003, Streisand attempted to suppress aerial photographs of her Californian home by suing photographer Kenneth Adelman for an invasion of privacy. Adelman, who Streisand assumed was paparazzi, was instead taking photographs to document and study coastal erosion. In her quest for more privacy, Streisand’s efforts had the opposite effect.

Compromise Effect

compromise-effect
Single-attribute choices – such as choosing the apartment with the lowest rent – are relatively simple. However, most of the decisions consumers make are based on multiple attributes which complicate the decision-making process. The compromise effect states that a consumer is more likely to choose the middle option of a set of products over more extreme options.

Butterfly Effect

butterfly-effect
In business, the butterfly effect describes the phenomenon where the simplest actions yield the largest rewards. The butterfly effect was coined by meteorologist Edward Lorenz in 1960 and as a result, it is most often associated with weather in pop culture. Lorenz noted that the small action of a butterfly fluttering its wings had the potential to cause progressively larger actions resulting in a typhoon.

IKEA Effect

ikea-effect
The IKEA effect is a cognitive bias that describes consumers’ tendency to value something more if they have made it themselves. That is why brands often use the IKEA effect to have customizations for final products, as they help the consumer relate to it more and therefore appending to it more value.

Ringelmann Effect 

Ringelmann Effect
The Ringelmann effect describes the tendency for individuals within a group to become less productive as the group size increases.

The Overview Effect

overview-effect
The overview effect is a cognitive shift reported by some astronauts when they look back at the Earth from space. The shift occurs because of the impressive visual spectacle of the Earth and tends to be characterized by a state of awe and increased self-transcendence.

House Money Effect

house-money-effect
The house money effect was first described by researchers Richard Thaler and Eric Johnson in a 1990 study entitled Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice. The house money effect is a cognitive bias where investors take higher risks on reinvested capital than they would on an initial investment.

Heuristic

heuristic
As highlighted by German psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer in the paper “Heuristic Decision Making,” the term heuristic is of Greek origin, meaning “serving to find out or discover.” More precisely, a heuristic is a fast and accurate way to make decisions in the real world, which is driven by uncertainty.

Recognition Heuristic

recognition-heuristic
The recognition heuristic is a psychological model of judgment and decision making. It is part of a suite of simple and economical heuristics proposed by psychologists Daniel Goldstein and Gerd Gigerenzer. The recognition heuristic argues that inferences are made about an object based on whether it is recognized or not.

Representativeness Heuristic

representativeness-heuristic
The representativeness heuristic was first described by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. The representativeness heuristic judges the probability of an event according to the degree to which that event resembles a broader class. When queried, most will choose the first option because the description of John matches the stereotype we may hold for an archaeologist.

Take-The-Best Heuristic

take-the-best-heuristic
The take-the-best heuristic is a decision-making shortcut that helps an individual choose between several alternatives. The take-the-best (TTB) heuristic decides between two or more alternatives based on a single good attribute, otherwise known as a cue. In the process, less desirable attributes are ignored.

Bundling Bias

bundling-bias
The bundling bias is a cognitive bias in e-commerce where a consumer tends not to use all of the products bought as a group, or bundle. Bundling occurs when individual products or services are sold together as a bundle. Common examples are tickets and experiences. The bundling bias dictates that consumers are less likely to use each item in the bundle. This means that the value of the bundle and indeed the value of each item in the bundle is decreased.

Barnum Effect

barnum-effect
The Barnum Effect is a cognitive bias where individuals believe that generic information – which applies to most people – is specifically tailored for themselves.

Anchoring Effect

anchoring-effect
The anchoring effect describes the human tendency to rely on an initial piece of information (the “anchor”) to make subsequent judgments or decisions. Price anchoring, then, is the process of establishing a price point that customers can reference when making a buying decision.

Decoy Effect

decoy-effect
The decoy effect is a psychological phenomenon where inferior – or decoy – options influence consumer preferences. Businesses use the decoy effect to nudge potential customers toward the desired target product. The decoy effect is staged by placing a competitor product and a decoy product, which is primarily used to nudge the customer toward the target product.

Commitment Bias

commitment-bias
Commitment bias describes the tendency of an individual to remain committed to past behaviors – even if they result in undesirable outcomes. The bias is particularly pronounced when such behaviors are performed publicly. Commitment bias is also known as escalation of commitment.

First-Principles Thinking

first-principles-thinking
First-principles thinking – sometimes called reasoning from first principles – is used to reverse-engineer complex problems and encourage creativity. It involves breaking down problems into basic elements and reassembling them from the ground up. Elon Musk is among the strongest proponents of this way of thinking.

Ladder Of Inference

ladder-of-inference
The ladder of inference is a conscious or subconscious thinking process where an individual moves from a fact to a decision or action. The ladder of inference was created by academic Chris Argyris to illustrate how people form and then use mental models to make decisions.

Goodhart’s Law

goodharts-law
Goodhart’s Law is named after British monetary policy theorist and economist Charles Goodhart. Speaking at a conference in Sydney in 1975, Goodhart said that “any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes.” Goodhart’s Law states that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

Six Thinking Hats Model

six-thinking-hats-model
The Six Thinking Hats model was created by psychologist Edward de Bono in 1986, who noted that personality type was a key driver of how people approached problem-solving. For example, optimists view situations differently from pessimists. Analytical individuals may generate ideas that a more emotional person would not, and vice versa.

Mandela Effect

mandela-effect
The Mandela effect is a phenomenon where a large group of people remembers an event differently from how it occurred. The Mandela effect was first described in relation to Fiona Broome, who believed that former South African President Nelson Mandela died in prison during the 1980s. While Mandela was released from prison in 1990 and died 23 years later, Broome remembered news coverage of his death in prison and even a speech from his widow. Of course, neither event occurred in reality. But Broome was later to discover that she was not the only one with the same recollection of events.

Crowding-Out Effect

crowding-out-effect
The crowding-out effect occurs when public sector spending reduces spending in the private sector.

Bandwagon Effect

bandwagon-effect
The bandwagon effect tells us that the more a belief or idea has been adopted by more people within a group, the more the individual adoption of that idea might increase within the same group. This is the psychological effect that leads to herd mentality. What in marketing can be associated with social proof.

Moore’s Law

moores-law
Moore’s law states that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles approximately every two years. This observation was made by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore in 1965 and it become a guiding principle for the semiconductor industry and has had far-reaching implications for technology as a whole.

Disruptive Innovation

disruptive-innovation
Disruptive innovation as a term was first described by Clayton M. Christensen, an American academic and business consultant whom The Economist called “the most influential management thinker of his time.” Disruptive innovation describes the process by which a product or service takes hold at the bottom of a market and eventually displaces established competitors, products, firms, or alliances.

Value Migration

value-migration
Value migration was first described by author Adrian Slywotzky in his 1996 book Value Migration – How to Think Several Moves Ahead of the Competition. Value migration is the transferal of value-creating forces from outdated business models to something better able to satisfy consumer demands.

Bye-Now Effect

bye-now-effect
The bye-now effect describes the tendency for consumers to think of the word “buy” when they read the word “bye”. In a study that tracked diners at a name-your-own-price restaurant, each diner was asked to read one of two phrases before ordering their meal. The first phrase, “so long”, resulted in diners paying an average of $32 per meal. But when diners recited the phrase “bye bye” before ordering, the average price per meal rose to $45.

Groupthink

groupthink
Groupthink occurs when well-intentioned individuals make non-optimal or irrational decisions based on a belief that dissent is impossible or on a motivation to conform. Groupthink occurs when members of a group reach a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the alternatives and their consequences.

Stereotyping

stereotyping
A stereotype is a fixed and over-generalized belief about a particular group or class of people. These beliefs are based on the false assumption that certain characteristics are common to every individual residing in that group. Many stereotypes have a long and sometimes controversial history and are a direct consequence of various political, social, or economic events. Stereotyping is the process of making assumptions about a person or group of people based on various attributes, including gender, race, religion, or physical traits.

Murphy’s Law

murphys-law
Murphy’s Law states that if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. Murphy’s Law was named after aerospace engineer Edward A. Murphy. During his time working at Edwards Air Force Base in 1949, Murphy cursed a technician who had improperly wired an electrical component and said, “If there is any way to do it wrong, he’ll find it.”

Law of Unintended Consequences

law-of-unintended-consequences
The law of unintended consequences was first mentioned by British philosopher John Locke when writing to parliament about the unintended effects of interest rate rises. However, it was popularized in 1936 by American sociologist Robert K. Merton who looked at unexpected, unanticipated, and unintended consequences and their impact on society.

Fundamental Attribution Error

fundamental-attribution-error
Fundamental attribution error is a bias people display when judging the behavior of others. The tendency is to over-emphasize personal characteristics and under-emphasize environmental and situational factors.

Outcome Bias

outcome-bias
Outcome bias describes a tendency to evaluate a decision based on its outcome and not on the process by which the decision was reached. In other words, the quality of a decision is only determined once the outcome is known. Outcome bias occurs when a decision is based on the outcome of previous events without regard for how those events developed.

Hindsight Bias

hindsight-bias
Hindsight bias is the tendency for people to perceive past events as more predictable than they actually were. The result of a presidential election, for example, seems more obvious when the winner is announced. The same can also be said for the avid sports fan who predicted the correct outcome of a match regardless of whether their team won or lost. Hindsight bias, therefore, is the tendency for an individual to convince themselves that they accurately predicted an event before it happened.

Read Next: BiasesBounded RationalityMandela EffectDunning-Kruger EffectLindy EffectCrowding Out EffectBandwagon Effect.

Main Guides:

Scroll to Top

Discover more from FourWeekMBA

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

FourWeekMBA