Wicked problems: turning strategic management upside down

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to critique the existing decision-making models of organizational theory and the ability of strategic managers to address unconventional problems using these models. Strategic management models presume reasonable stability in the task environment and the organizational design features. However, complex problems, or wicked problems, are prolific in a global world. They change profoundly the nature of strategic management, where management faces a deep paradox – an environment of unprecedented interdependence, yet unpredictable forces of chaos and volatility, a landscape of wicked problems. In this paper, the authors address wicked problems within the context of strategic management. Design/methodology/approach – The authors review and critique the organizational theory literature, namely, microeconomics, bounded rationality, organizational failure and the theory of creative destruction within the context of wicked problems. Findings – The authors find that the contemporary models of strategic management are incapable of assisting managers in addressing the reality of wicked problems. They argue that organizational pathologies rest in executive action: pursuit of goals and objectives with a false sense of causation, feedback filters that exaggerate good news and restrict bad news and actions that give only token measures to correct faulty design decisions and faulty decision processes, including more emphasis on vertical channels than horizontal task interdependencies. Originality/value – The authors conclude that wicked problem-solving is by temperament and time horizon, a multilayered, multitasked, organizational challenge, and requires fundamentally different mindsets for design and performance systems for senior executives. The study of wicked problems requires a new corporate mindset, new collaborative models to address them and new corporate processes and executive training tools who increasingly have to address them. This research is a first step toward extending our understanding of how to address the world of wicked problems.

A small wins framework to overcome the evaluation paradox of governing wicked problems

“…Accordingly, a variety of 'hopeful' strategies are presented, such as frame-reflective policies, collaborative arrangements, adaptive leadership, inclusive processes and network governance (e.g. Innes & Booher, 2016;Levin, Cashore, Bernstein, & Auld, 2012;McMillan & Overall, 2016;Roberts, 2000;Weber & Khademian, 2008). Most literature also notes that changes in governance systems themselves are required to enable these new strategies, as conventional command and control structures are ill-suited to do so (Candel, 2016;Head & Alford, 2015;Termeer, Dewulf, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, Vink, & Van Vliet, 2016).…”

The Politics of Openness

“…Organizations already participating in crowdsourcing or engaging with external others through a community of practice (Dobusch & Kapeller, 2013) are likely to deepen their openness. Especially this will be the case, the literature suggests, when these organizations are facing real world, complex, interconnected and constantly changing environments, presenting 'wicked problems' (McMillan & Overall, 2016). Where many stakeholders with conflicting values are involved and where information is confusing (Churchman, 1967), multiple inter-related issues cannot simply be solved by solving each issue individually (Macfadyen, Dawson, Pardo, & Gasevic, 2014;Schmitt, 2010).…”

Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process

“…VFT is a long-established decision-analytic approach appropriate for identifying and structuring objectives in strategic decision problems (Keeney 1992). Such problems-framed in the management literature as wicked problems of organized complexity (Rittel and Webber 1973, Ackoff 1974, Mason and Mitroff 1981reflect states of extreme complexity, whereby the problems and solutions are neither obvious nor easy to agree on (Belton and Stewart 2010); multiple stakeholders are involved with multiple and often conflicting objectives Franco 2010, Punt 2017); and stakeholder perspectives are negotiated through social bargaining, that is, intense dialogue processes (Thomas 1984, McMillan andOverall 2016).…”