Analytical vs.

Intuitive
The analytical style of thinking is step-wise and logical. It usually attempts to break a
problem or issue into its constituent parts both to understand and to address or solve it.
It is usually very methods-driven, following thought-through (and sometime research-
derived) models and frameworks. Examples of these are the real options analysis for
planning technology investments, and business model canvas, used during new
business development).

On the other hand, the intuitive style of thinking is driven more by gut-feel and
confidence derived from experience. It does not follow a prescribed set of analytical
steps, but draws on observed indicators and trends from the internal and external
organisation environment to reach strategic decisions. Since specific explicitly available
formulae are not followed, it relies on the individual’s ability developing their own
internal modes of making sense of strategic issues.

There are advantages attributable to these different styles of thinking. For instance, an
analytical approach to a certain matter will normally be open and allow objective
contribution of multiple individuals allowing them to work together based on a commonly
understood model or framework. An intuitive approach is normally fast and efficient. It
relies on the mental and experiential capacity to read meanings into observed patterns
and derive solutions very quickly.

Of course there are flip sides to these advantages, and the downsides to each approach
are often easy to observe. When faced with complex problems, analytical approaches
often breakdown, unable to cope with the range and levels of variables. The reliance on
models also means that it requires specialist knowledge, e.g. the understanding and
use of the Black-Scholes model for real options valuation.

Intuitive approaches are very individual, and rely on tacit knowledge that is not often
easy to share. Bringing others on board to agree on a decision often would rely on the
power of persuasion, and sometimes the making links between influencing factors that
stakeholders may find tenuous and difficult to accept. Decisions can very easily be seen
as subjective or, worse, political in nature.

 
A sweet middle point? – some ideas
Over the years in leading and participating strategy meetings and workshops, I have
noticed individuals’ natural preference for one style of thinking over the other. Some
would like to find a way to break the problem down, understanding and solve each
component before aggregating the solutions – the analytical thinkers, while others
prefer to start with an overall vision and help individual issues ‘fall in place’ as we go
along – intuitive thinking. It is not entirely uncommon that disagreements would ensue
over the ‘better’ approach before one party eventually begrudgingly bends to the will of
the other.

It is often best, if possible, to find a middle point, at which people at the extremes of the
analytical-intuitive spectrum are still willing to engage. In doing this, I have found that it
is important to understand that there are multiple aspects to developing a strategy (e.g.
visioning, identifying and understanding market/industry trends and drivers,
understanding and assessing core resources and competences, etc.), and to identify
where an analytical or intuitive approach is better given the context. Often a mix of
analytical and intuitive techniques would result and deliver a more rounded approach to
strategy. For example, one can use intuitive approaches to formulate a vision and apply
more analytical techniques to assess organisational competences. Another thing to do
is (again, where possible) to allocate aspects of the process to matching personality
types, so people can contribute through the approach they are more comfortable with.

One other thing I have found very useful, especially in strategy meetings and workshops
is the use of strategy templates that blend intuitive and analytical styles of thinking.
Such templates, usually customised to the specific strategic issue the organisation is
looking to address, have quite often found an appropriate level of analytical rigour that
can be delivered in a time- and resource-efficient manner. They bring in the visual
element to strategy that many can relate to and work with, and facilitate consensus
among participants.
Analytical thinking is powerful. It is focused, sharp, linear, deals with one
thing at a time, contains time, is deconstructive, contains no perspective, is
subject to disorientation, is brain centered, and tends to the abstract.
Analytical thinking is efficient in the following conditions – sufficient
time, relatively static conditions, a clear differentiation between the
observer and the observed. It is best suited for dealing with complexities,
and works best where there are established criteria for the analysis (for
example, rules of law). It is necessary when an explanation is required,
seeks the best option, and can be taught in the classroom to beginners.
Intuitive thinking has contrasting qualities: it is unfocused, nonlinear,
contains “no time,” sees many things at once, views the big picture,
contains perspective, is heart centered, oriented in space and time, and
tends to the real or concrete. Intuition comes into its own where analytical
thinking is inadequate: under time pressure, where conditions are dynamic,
where the differentiation between observer and observed is unclear. It
works best where the observer has experience in the particular situation, is
difficult to teach in the classroom, eschews seeking the ‘best’ option in
favor of the ‘workable,’ and is prepared to act on feelings or hunches
where explanations are either not required or there is no time for them.
Intuition is experience translated by expertise to produce rapid action.
Intuition is limited where the task is complex and uncertain, where the
observer lacks experience, or the observation is distorted by biases or fixed
ideas. Its weakness is a tendency to produce a fixed attitude or mindset that
ignores new data; that is why the analytical thinking of the Enlightenment
was so revolutionary. Intuition is ineffective for predicting the stock
market, or for discovering that the heart is a pump, or for dissecting a legal
problem.
When analytical and intuitive abilities are combined, the result is ‘holistic.’
In order to effect settlements and resolutions, it is necessary to move
people out of a rights/obligations/win-lose mindset into a
needs/interests/mutual gain mindset, which is what mediation is all about –
this requires holistic thinking abilities.