This week I’ll complete the list of the 12 factors that define what better quality thinking looks like. Being clear about all 12 factors helps you know whether you’re generating better or worse ideas that you were before.
In a conversation between two people, track who is surprised by the other's points. If one person consistently introduces information, framings, or implications that the other hadn't considered, while the reverse rarely happens, the asymmetry of surprise reveals a difference in the depth of thinking and often creates a ‘learning gradient’
For example, a junior analyst and a senior strategist discuss a report about market conditions. After the conversation, the junior has several new things to think about. The senior hasn’t learnt anything new about the market. That asymmetry is diagnostic of who brings the better-quality thinking. How much is each person contributing to the learning and development of the other person.
Better thinking requires fewer unexamined assumptions to reach its conclusions. If an argument only works if you have to grant it five unstated premises, then it's a poorer quality argument than one that reaches the same conclusion from fewer untested assumptions.
For example, if your strategy relies on customers changing their behaviour, regulators staying passive, your competitions not changing what they are doing, and costs remaining stable then this is a much poorer strategy because it’s resting on four fragile assumptions simultaneously. A strategy that works without such reliance is built on higher-quality thinking.
Poor quality thinking has a low-quality answer to the "so what?" or "why does that matter?" question. Higher-quality thinking has more layers. You can repeatedly ask "so what?" to test it, and each response yields something genuinely new, rather than repeating the previous point in different words.
For example: "We should improve customer satisfaction." So what? "Loyal customers spend more." So what? "That reduces our customer acquisition cost relative to revenue, improving unit economics." So what? "It means we can afford to price competitively without sacrificing margins." Each layer is substantive. Someone who runs out of answers by layer two is thinking at a shallower depth.
Better thinkers understand the importance of relationships. Not just relationships between individuals but relationships between everything including ideas. They often define a much greater variety of relationships because such things drive functionality.
For example, a lattice of carbon atoms with no vertical integration is what you see in a pencil. When the lattice is vertically integrated and the carbon atoms are horizontally and vertically connected you have a diamond. A small change in the relationship between atoms completely changes the physical properties. Similarly, if you really want to understand how an organisation works ignore the ‘Org Chart’ and conduct a network analysis. This can reveal an incredible amount of commercially actionable insights that can transform outcomes.
One of the most obvious signs of increased maturity and better-quality thinking is an individual’s ability to take a longer-term perspective. Better thinkers will always balance short-term gains with medium- and longer-term opportunities because it recognises that some of today's "solutions" create tomorrow's problems.
For example, two product leaders debate whether to fix accumulated technical debt or ship new features. The shorter-horizon thinker ships features because the metrics look good for two quarters. The longer-horizon thinker knows that the debt is compounding, that engineering velocity will halve within a year, and that the features being built now will themselves become impossible to maintain. The second person is thinking on a different timescale, not just thinking differently, but thinking better.
Lower-quality thinking is often entangled with the thinker's identity. Poor thinkers engage in defending a position, rationalising their error and projecting blame rather than pursuing an answer. Better thinkers treat being wrong as useful information rather than a threat. They give credit readily and can surrender their own ideas when a better one appears.
For example, in a strategy meeting, the proposals of two executives are challenged. One becomes defensive and finds reasons to dismiss the challenge. The other pauses, recognises the value of the challenge says, "that's a better framing than mine," and immediately starts building on the challenger's point rather than reverting to their own. A month later, the second person's project is on track and the first is quietly being restructured. The difference wasn't intelligence; it was the willingness to let go.
Better quality thinking can be differentiated from lower quality thinking, if you think about it. Better thinking creates a gradient, makes fewer assumptions, has more depth, creates a greater diversity of relationships, sees into the future and is less egocentric.
So work on the quality of your thinking. With a little effort you will be able to outthink those around you.
And with better thinking we can move faster, be more competitive and succeed more often.