Effects of scenario planning on participant mental models

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to assess the effects of scenario planning on participant mental model styles. Design/methodology/approach -The scenario planning literature is consistent with claims that scenario planning can change individual mental models. These claims are supported by anecdotal evidence and stories from the practical application of scenario planning. This research study documents the responses of 129 participants from 10 organizations using the mental model style survey as a pretest and posttest, with scenario planning as the intervention. Paired samples t-tests were performed between participant pretest and posttest, to test hypotheses on all five factors of the mental model style survey. Findings -Results provide evidence that scenario planning can change individual mental model styles. More specifically, results show that scenario planning promotes efficiency, social, and systems mental model styles, with moderate effect sizes.Research limitations/implications -The implications of this research include contribution to the growing body of quantitative studies attempting to document the impact scenario planning has on participants. Implications for future research include the use of control groups to isolate effects of the scenario planning intervention. Originality/value -The study documents one of the largest sample sizes to date in scenario planning research and makes a clear contribution in clarifying significant changes in mental model styles from pretest to posttest.

Scenario Planning as Approach to Improve the Strategic Performance of Multinational Corporations (Mncs)

“…Many previous research and studies found that scenario planning is regarded as the most important element that influence the internal business processes within organization (Ramirez and Wilkinson 2016, Sarpong and Maclean 2011, van der Heijden 1996. As well, the findings revealed that the scenario planning has a significant positive relationship with learning and growth and it is in line with previous studies (Arafet and Ali 2018, Bennett et al 2016, Burt et al 2017, Glick et al 2012, Schwartz 1996, van der Heijden 1996. Finally, the findings of this study in general demonstrated that the scenario planning has a significant positive relationship with strategic performance.…”

“…The results of previous studies found that scenario planning helps to find innovative and robust solutions to address complex problems and solve it in effective manner (Arafet and Ali 2018, Bennett et al 2016, Burt et al 2017, Schwartz 1996, van der Heijden 1996. In addition, scenario planning leads to enhance the efficiency of organization's management through the development of leadership capability and capacity (Glick et al 2012). Moreover, scenario planning considered as a training tool that contributes to increase the skills of employees and development of human resource in general (Glick et al 2012).…”

“…In addition, scenario planning leads to enhance the efficiency of organization's management through the development of leadership capability and capacity (Glick et al 2012). Moreover, scenario planning considered as a training tool that contributes to increase the skills of employees and development of human resource in general (Glick et al 2012). Therefore the fourth hypothesis is:…”

Do participatory scenario exercises promote systems thinking and build consensus?

“…Scenario exercises also encourage participants to consider future states that represent a dramatic break from current trends, thereby promoting understanding of non-linear behavior which is common in complex systems (Swart et al, 2004). Glick et al (2012) found evidence that scenario planning improves participants' systems thinking skills, as indicated by shifts in their mental models observed post-scenario exercise.…”

Scenario planning as organizational intervention

“…For instance, research on dynamic capabilities, (Teece 2007) as well as organizational identity and learning (Brown and Starkey 2000) have briefly touched upon the potential benefits of SP. Yet, empirical evidence supporting its individual and organizational outcomes is insufficient (Chermack and Nimon 2008; Glick Chermack, Luckel and Gauck 2012;Harries 2003; O'Keefe and Wright 2010) and potentially unreliable because of the anecdotal and subjective-based nature of self-reported practitioners' often-biased-accounts of their interventions (Hodgkinson and Healey 2008).…”