BUSHOR-1467; No.

of Pages 10

Business Horizons (2018) xxx, xxx—xxx

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor

“One of these days, things are going to

change!” How do you make sense of
market disruption?
Tore Strandvik, Maria Holmlund *, Ilkka Lähteenmäki

Centre for Relationship Marketing & Service Management, Hanken School of Economics, P.O. Box 479,
Helsinki, Finland

KEYWORDS Abstract The significance of mindsets is apparent in everyday business life.

Mindset; As today’s managers and companies face uncertainty and disruptive change in
Managerial decision the business environment and markets, there is a growing need to understand and
making; strategically address such change. This becomes challenging when disruptive
Self-diagnosing tool; market forces confront the institutional logic or rules of the game based on
Management strategy; collectively acquired experience of doing business in the given field. In overcoming
Market disruption such challenges, managers’ hidden reasoning remains an untapped potential while
their existing mindset influences what they attend to and what they decide to do.
This article elaborates a diagnostic framework, accompanied by a tool to help
managers make sense of disruptive markets and reflect individually and collectively
on possible courses of action. The framework has two principal dimensions–—strategic
scope and focus–—that are further divided into three business elements of strategic
market-oriented management: offering, customer, and market. The tool offers a
practical means of profiling individuals’ mindsets. In increasingly dynamic
business environments, reflection capabilities represent a new source of competitive
advantage.
# 2018 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights
reserved.

1. Markets are increasingly disruptive

For most industries, the business landscape has

changed dramatically in recent years, affecting
* Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: tore.strandvik@hanken.fi (T. Strandvik),
both established companies and startups. In this
maria.holmlund-rytkonen@hanken.fi (M. Holmlund), environment, there is growing concern that
ilkka.lahteenmaki@hanken.fi (I. Lähteenmäki) managers’ traditional map of the landscape–—that

0007-6813/$ — see front matter # 2018 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.014
BUSHOR-1467; No. of Pages 10

2 T. Strandvik et al.

is, their mindset–—is outdated, and there is a need In any industry or company, whether already
to rethink in order to remain competitive. experiencing disruptions or not, the value of man-
For example, experts in the financial industry have agers’ mindsets represents an untapped resource.
noted growing global pressure for change, While organizational similarity of mindset and
especially among incumbent financial institutions shared meaning may work in stable situations,
(Dietz, Härle, & Khanna, 2016). The multiple forces increasingly dynamic environments demand mind-
of change extend beyond fintech and digitalization set diversity. In such circumstances individuals can
to include new disruptive entities such as make or break a company, and this is our starting
e-retailers, large ICT and tech companies, startups, point: What if companies and organizations recog-
robotics, artificial intelligence, and social media nized individuals who make key decisions about
platforms. Other relevant factors include changes what to do next, and what if there was a tool to
in customer behaviors, industry regulation, and analyze how they think? Such a tool would be useful
the need to switch from continuous improvement not only in crises but also as a proactive means of
of existing processes alone to transformational ensuring and enhancing continued competitiveness.
change. More than 80% of banking leaders believe In order to see individual managers and their
that their business is at risk, and that revolutionary mindsets as an organizational capability, it becomes
newcomers alter the institutional logic in ways that essential to understand how different mindsets can
challenge incumbent actors. While managers at be utilized and how they affect the organization.
incumbent companies generally confess to fear of How do managers envision the future? What are the
disruption and where it may lead, many businesses priorities of each individual manager? What does
find ways of managing through it. To date, incum- each believe the core of the business should be to
bent financial institutions have been slow to take generate sustainable competitive strength for the
drastic measures. Some argue that this is because future? What is the detail of their marketing priori-
they operate in a highly regulated market where ties and the hidden potential of their offerings,
margins remain satisfactory. However, that market customers, and markets? Today, even when these
is now approaching a point where genuine disrup- issues are discussed, there is in practice no formal-
tion is intensifying, and not all will survive. ized means of systematically identifying and artic-
Many other industries have already experienced this ulating these hidden assumptions. This article
effect, and more will presumably follow suit. describes such a tool, with instructions for diagnos-
The notion of disruption dates back to Christen- ing fundamental business logics.
sen’s renowned book The Innovator’s Dilemma:
When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail,
which drew a distinction between sustaining tech-
nologies that build on current products, making 2. The views of individuals matter
existing operations more efficient, and disruptive
technologies that redefine those operations “We have to change in order to be the same” is the
(Christensen, 1997). Based on numerous cases, title of the first chapter of Richard Normann’s
Christensen observed that many respected and (2001) seminal book, Reframing Business: When
well-managed companies failed when confronted the Map Changes the Landscape. This publication
by changing markets and technologies because they was the first–—and remains one of the very few–—to
continued to do what had worked for them in the link the changing logics of business context and
past and underestimated rivals’ disruptive innova- value creation to the mental processes that enable
tions. While few incumbents transformed success- companies to change. However, rather than empha-
fully into disruptive innovators, new entrants size an aggregated collective mind in which
emerged and began to dominate the market. meaning is shared by managers and others,
The paradox was that, in disruptive market situa- Normann (2001) highlighted the significance of
tions where companies knew least, the payoff was key individuals. Some are CEOs with a mandate to
highest for learning quickly and being a first mover. direct their company; others are entrepreneurs
In disruptive markets, what seems to distinguish with a singular vision that may contradict what is
winners from losers is that the successful companies expected or taken for granted. For example, what
have individuals who can see the present and the would Ikea be today without the original and
future more clearly than others, and act on their persisting vision of its founder, Ingvar Kamprad?
vision to steer their company into what is, for Other examples include Bill Gates of Microsoft,
others, the unknown. These prominent business Steve Jobs of Apple, and Mark Zuckerberg of
innovators and leaders serve as role models for Facebook, and there are other visionaries less well
how to rethink and challenge business assumptions. known to the wider public. Extending this idea
BUSHOR-1467; No. of Pages 10

“One of these days, things are going to change!” How do you make sense of market disruption? 3

beyond the influence of top managers, we argue marketing as a company function to its fundamen-
that, in a complex and dynamic business environ- tal role in strategic management. These different
ment, the role of the individual becomes increas- approaches have included Customer Relationship
ingly important. A focus on shared meaning and Management (CRM), the business network perspec-
organizational culture and identity downplays the tive, the service perspective and, more recently,
fact that individuals have their own mindsets, mak- the customer-dominant business logic. Each is
ing it important for both the individual and the based on a set of distinct underlying assumptions
collective to understand those mindsets. that have profound consequences for practice.
Confronted with the same environment and cir- Here, they inform the development of a tool to
cumstances, different managers know different analyze managers’ mindsets, which embody beliefs
things and have different thoughts, about not only and ideas formed consciously or instinctively
what is going on but also about what the company through experience and guide managers’ thoughts
should do to succeed. This need not be a weakness if and actions.
the company recognizes the existence of distinct
views and the potential benefits of exploiting them
for what they are. Just as managers’ individual
technical and personal skills and capabilities are 3. A new tool to diagnose and reflect
assessed and utilized, their cognition or mindset in on mindsets
relation to the business landscape (Normann, 2001)
and how the company might act should be of greater The proposed mind-mapping framework and tool
interest. Indeed, each manager’s understanding will help managers to think and reflect more effec-
plays an essential role, especially when the land- tively by self-diagnosing their mindset in relation to
scape is changing. market disruptions. The framework has two princi-
Recently, the significance of managers’ mindsets pal dimensions–—strategic scope and focus–—that
has also been discussed in relation to how markets are further divided into three business elements:
are defined and understood. If markets are mentally offering, customer, and market. The tool offers a
constructed rather than given, then companies can practical means of profiling individuals’ thinking in
identify new business opportunities by thinking relation to these crucial business elements. The
differently. In their study of market innovations, basics of the tool are (1) do the test, (2) profile
Storbacka and Nenonen (2015) took this idea the results in the matrix, (3) read the guide for
further, arguing that whole business networks must interpreting results, and (4) reflect individually or in
be convinced of the need to think differently. This teams on the findings and conclusions.
notion of mindset links directly to change–—or, more The tool includes a reflection exercise to be
precisely, to lack of change–—in the company. completed individually according to each manager’s
For managers in disruptive markets, it is personal view. As shown in Table 1, it comprises
critical–—and not always easy–—to assess the situa- eight statements. Three distinct options are provid-
tion before deciding what to do. Zooming in, we ed, one of which is selected by the individual.
find that it is the individual’s thinking that drives The tool distinguishes two fundamental dimen-
behavior and underpins decisions, making it crucial sions of mindset: strategic focus and strategic
to discern personal logic. Given the significance of scope. The first two statements independently as-
how individual managers think, it is surprising that sess the manager’s general mindset type in terms of
more attention has not been devoted to this issue. these two dimensions. The next six statements
In one rare study, Rydén, Ringberg, and Wilke employ these same dimensions to reveal specific
(2015) showed how managers conceptualize and individual priorities in relation to customers, offer-
use social media, identifying four distinct mindsets ings, and markets. These correspond broadly to
in relation to business-customer interactions: Teece’s (2010) business model, conceptualizing
business-to-customers, business-from-customers, how management hypothesizes what customers
business-with-customers, and business-for-cus- want, how they want it, and how those needs can
tomers. These mindsets represent fundamentally be met while making a profit. Results from our tool
different ways of understanding the role of cus- can be input to the matrices in Figures 1 and 2.
tomers beyond the simplistic customer orientation The strategic mindset categorization in Figure 1
perspective (business-to-customers) that has shows nine different combinations of responses
tended to dominate much business practice. from Statements #1 and #2. Figure 2 shows the
The academic marketing literature reveals how mindsets in more detail, referring to Statements
different logics have evolved from the 1970s to the #3—#8 about the three core business elements
present day. Our study reflects this evolution from (customer, offering, and market). Positions in
BUSHOR-1467; No. of Pages 10

4 T. Strandvik et al.

Table 1. Mindset diagnostic tool between their own beliefs and the core descriptions
Instruction: Please choose one of the three options of mindsets.
for each statement (numbered 1 to 8) that best The following examples of mindsets and mindset
corresponds to your personal view concerning the transitions in real companies illustrate the value of
company you work for. the new tool. The most common mindset, from
When markets disrupt, I believe that which some companies are struggling to escape,
#1 In our business strategies, we should prioritize: is the transaction/company view (a-d); examples
include mass producers, bulk product companies,
(a) Company-internal capabilities and car producers. In this situation, the company
(b) Capabilities for interacting with customers
(c) Capabilities for understanding customers
may also be customer oriented, perhaps collecting
data about customers’ preferences and making
#2 In our business strategies, we should prioritize: product adaptations. Many of these companies have
loyalty programs and offer benefits for accumulated
(d) Unique products/services as value drivers buying (a-e).
(e) Customer relationships as value drivers In contrast, some consumer companies have
(f) A systems view as the value driver been successful because of their unorthodox
approach to understanding and supporting users
#3 We should focus on our customers as: of their products in their context and over time
(a) Reactive
(c-e and c-e). Examples include Ikea and Lego.
(b) Participating Both of these global companies place customers
(c) Dominant at the core, going far beyond customer orientation
as it is commonly understood. Instead, Ikea
#4 We should consider our customers’ interest to be proposes to “create a better everyday life for as
based on: many people as possible around the world”1 by
enabling consumers to create and live in comfort-
(d) Unique products/services
able, affordable homes. Its whole business model is
(e) Relationships
(f) Systems of products and services built around a customer-dominant view. Lego’s
customer-empowering orientation shows in the vo-
#5 We should focus on developing offerings based on: cabulary it uses; for example, “inspire and develop
the builders of tomorrow”2 emphasizes Lego fans,
(a) Company-internal priorities playful learning, the power to create, and play
(b) Collaboration with customers experiences. Although many companies have tried,
(c) Customer priorities
few have succeeded in equaling Lego’s customer
understanding skills.
#6 We should consider the scope of our offering as:
The transition from one perspective to another is
(d) Unique products/services not easy for many reasons. Among other factors,
(e) Relationships with customers managers are not necessarily aware of their own
(f) Systems of products and services underlying assumptions because these remain
implicit as long as the business is constant or grow-
#7 We should define our markets on the basis of: ing. In practice, moving from one position to anoth-
er is not an easy task, as it involves abandoning
(a) Company functions/units
(b) Customer interaction forms
fundamental beliefs and adopting a new mindset.
(c) Customer activities and reasoning The old mindset not only persists in the minds of
managers but also is ingrained in the organization’s
#8 We should consider the scope of our market as: culture, structures, processes, and performance
measurement systems. For example, when adopting
(d) Products/services a service perspective, many companies struggle to
(e) Customer relationship types switch their focus from product features to custom-
(f) Systems of products and services
er interaction capabilities. Similarly, the shift to a
relationship focus requires a mindset transforma-
tion that extends beyond current transactions to
include a time perspective on customers. Perhaps
Figures 1 and 2 correspond, and each position is
further described in Table 2, which guides interpre-
tation of the different mindsets. The manager can 1
www.ikea.com
2
also use Table 2 to reflect on the correspondence www.lego.com
BUSHOR-1467; No. of Pages 10

“One of these days, things are going to change!” How do you make sense of market disruption? 5

Figure 1. Strategic mindsets

Strategic mindset grounded in

Systems/ Systems/ Systems/

f) Systems company interacon customer
view view view

SCOPE
Statement # 2
Relaonship/ Relaonship/ Relaonship/
e) Relaonship company interacon customer
view view view

Transacon/ Transacon/ Transacon/

d) Transacon company interacon customer
view view view

a) Company b) Interacon c) Customer

FOCUS
Statement # 1

Figure 2. Core business elements (Customer-Offering-Market) of strategic mindsets

Customer as target Customer as contributor Customer as orchestrator

Seller-defined soluon Co-created soluon Customer-defined soluon
f) Systems
Seller-defined Seller-negoated Customer-defined
market/system market /system market/system
SCOPE Customer as parcipant
Customer as target Customer as designer
Statements # 4, 6, 8 Repeated buying/
Repeated buying/ Repeated buying/
contract embedded in
contract and added contract and customer
e) Relaonship negoated relaonship
valued features
relaonship features features
Seller-defined market Customer-defined market
Seller-negoated market

Customer as target Customer as parcipant Customer as integrator

Seller-defined Customer-perceived Customer-valued
d) Transacon products/services products/services products/services
Seller-defined market Seller-defined market Customer-defined market

a) Company b) Interacon c) Customer

FOCUS
Statements #3, 5, 7

the most dramatic change in mindset is the move company, best known as a payment system for people
from an interaction-based to a customer-dominant making purchases on e-commerce websites. Now, the
view, as it is no longer a matter of involving company is expanding to become a software platform
customers in company processes but of understand- for a range of financial transactions. According to its
ing how and why customers choose to involve the current CEO (Schulman, 2016), the need to change its
company in their processes. fundamental business logic is primarily a conse-
Today, a typical mindset/business transformation quence of smartphone growth, which gives people
entails a move from transaction-based to systems- access to applications and platforms. For PayPal, the
based while retaining a company focus (a-d to a-f). transformation has meant evolving the technology as
Many online companies reflect this trend; for the underlying merchant operating system for digital
example, PayPal was originally a financial technology commerce, opening its platforms to an ecosystem,
BUSHOR-1467; No. of Pages 10

6 T. Strandvik et al.

Table 2. Interpretation guide: Strategic mindsets

Strategic Mindset Type Core description
Transaction/company view - Customers are targets that need to be activated by marketing communication.
- Value resides in products and service solutions designed by the company and delivered
to customers.
- Markets are faceless and homogenous collections of products, customers, and
competitors.
- Marketing is a function or department in the company.
- Primary business goals are to increase revenues, cut costs, and differentiate from
competitors in order to increase market share and short-term profitability.
- Customer orientation means collecting data about customer needs and preferences.

Transaction/interaction view - Customers are participants in service encounters focused on the customer and their
quality and value perceptions.
- Value resides both in the products and in the interactions between company and customer.
- Markets are faceless and homogenous collections of products, customers, and competi-
tors, where level of customer service is a deciding factor.
- Marketing is not only a function; all personnel are part-time marketers, and the service
culture is important.
- The primary business goal is to increase customer-perceived quality of products and
interactions to differentiate from competitors and so increase market share and short-
term profitability.
- Customer orientation means mapping and improving contact points with customers and
customer experiences of these.

Transaction/customer view - Customers integrate products and services from different sellers into their lives, making it
essential to understand how they think and behave.
- Value emerges through customers’ use of products and services; the better these match,
the higher their value.
- Markets form around the products and services that the customer uses and are defined by
customer use of offerings.
- Marketing is central and ingrained in all company activities and goals.
- The primary business goal is to understand different customer logics and activities that
capture their attention and preferences for relevance to selected customer groups.
- Customer orientation means understanding customer processes and goals holistically and
in context.

Relationship/company view - Customers are targets that need to be activated by marketing communication. Value
resides in customer relationships based on contracts or repeated purchase of bundles of
products and services augmented by value-adding features and adjusted for different
customer types and situations over time.
- Markets are faceless and homogenous collections of customer relationships and
competitors.
- Marketing spans many functions and departments and needs to be coordinated to support
customer relationship management.
- Primary business goals are to initiate and maintain customer relationships and to measure
and increase customer relationship profitability, as long-term relationships are considered
to increase revenues and stability and reduce costs.
- Customer orientation means collecting data about customer needs and preferences
over time.

Relationship/interaction view - Customers are participants in relationships that focus on the customer and their quality
and value perceptions.
- Value resides both in bundles of products and services and in value-adding features,
especially in customer-specific adjustments and interactions over time between company
and customer.
- Markets are collections of customer relationships with different levels of customer service
in which the customer position is central.
- Marketing spans many functions and departments and needs to be coordinated to support
customer relationship management.
- Primary business goals are to initiate and maintain customer relationships and to measure
and increase customer relationship profitability, as long-term relationships are considered
necessary to increase revenues and stability and reduce costs.
-
BUSHOR-1467; No. of Pages 10

“One of these days, things are going to change!” How do you make sense of market disruption? 7

Table 2 (Continued )
Strategic Mindset Type Core description
Customer orientation means optimizing interactions with customers and customer
experiences of these.

Relationship/customer view - Customers select and combine products, services, and value-adding relationship features
from sellers as needed.
- Value emerges in customers’ use of products, services, and value-adding relationship
features; the better these match, the higher their value.
- Markets form around the products, services, and value-adding relationship features the
customer uses and are defined according to customer logics.
- Marketing is central and ingrained in all company activities and goals.
- The primary business goal is to understand different customer logics and activities that
capture their attention and preferences for relevance to selected customer groups.
- Customer orientation means understanding customer processes and goals holistically and
in context.

Systems/company view - Customers are targets that need to be activated by marketing communication.
- Value resides in building solutions and platforms where services are integrated and
designed by the company and delivered to customers.
- Markets are faceless and homogenous collections of solutions, platforms, and competing
systems.
- Marketing is a function or department in the company.
- Primary business goals are to build solutions (alone or with suitable partners) that are
more competitive than existing single services or similar systems on the market,
so differentiating from competitors to increase market share and short-term profitability.
- Customer orientation means collecting data about customer needs and preferences that
can be translated into service systems or solutions.

Systems/interaction view - Customers are contributors to solutions focusing on the customer and their engagement.
- Value resides in both solutions and co-creation of these with customers over time.
- Markets are competing systems and platforms around solutions and are not fully controlled
by the seller.
- Marketing spans many functions and departments and needs to be coordinated to support
solutions and platforms and customer interactions.
- Primary business goals are to develop processes and platforms for solutions and customer
interaction contact points.
- Customer orientation means mapping and improving complex configurations of services,
contact points with customers, and customer experiences of these.

Systems/customer view - Customers independently organize and coordinate solutions that they need to improve
their lives.
- Value emerges in customers’ use of solutions; the better these match, the higher their
value.
- Markets form for the customer around the solutions they use and are defined according to
customer logics.
- Marketing is central and ingrained in all company activities and goals.
- The primary business goal is to understand different customer logics and activities that
capture their attention and preferences for relevance to selected customer groups.
- Customer orientation means understanding customer processes and goals holistically and
in context.

and partnering with companies like Facebook and that transformed its culture at an early stage from
Visa to solve problems for customer segments with engineering products, first incorporating services
different needs using new payment methods like related to these products and then retaining the
Venmo and PayPal Working Capital. service focus while extending it to relationships and
Transformation through as many as four different systems (a-d to b-d to b-e to b-f). In servitization
mindsets and, by implication, four different ways of situations of this kind, mastering profound transfor-
doing business, is rare. KONE Corporation is a classic mation and deciding on concrete actions is no easy
example of a traditional manufacturing company task (see Kowalkowski & Ulaga, 2017). KONE began
BUSHOR-1467; No. of Pages 10

8 T. Strandvik et al.

by introducing a service culture, emphasizing that value drivers, and the key business elements of cus-
elevator and escalator maintenance people need to tomer, offering, and market. In comparison to in-
be included as they come into direct contact with cumbents, they are also less burdened by previous
customers. Gradually, different services became business beliefs and are therefore better equipped to
more than a way of adding value to company prod- cope in a changing marketplace.
ucts, offering benefits and increasing value for the Since nobody knows for sure what the winning
customer over time to build and strengthen custom- mindset will be, there is no way of knowing–—except
er relationships. While retaining this service focus, in hindsight–—which mindset was wrong or right, or
KONE now provides solutions within still-larger whether several parallel mindsets might be success-
systems in the construction domain. In each case, ful. The market does not demand a certain mindset
initiating the mindset and business transition has or way of operating, and there is no way of knowing
not been easy, and the role of CEOs and key people how far one is from the optimal model. Instead, it is
has been highlighted–—and sometimes criticized–—in a matter of how the customer, offering, and market
the media. are scripted and shaped (see Storbacka & Nenonen,
This evolution of perspectives reflects how the 2015) by individuals and the company.
business environment and society have changed over Management-oriented journals, magazines, and
time; newer approaches typically are responses to books offer excellent insights into well-regarded
emergent challenges, posed for example by informa- executives’ mindsets. Biographies and articles such
tion technology, globalization, or environmental as Harvard Business Review’s “How I Did It” (e.g.,
concerns. In general, disruptive markets seem to Schulman, 2016; Stone, 2015) reveal executives’
require a shift to the right and top of the matrix reasoning, how it has evolved, and how their per-
(see Figures 1 and 2). sonal thinking played a significant role in why they
were hired. These accounts clearly demonstrate the
power of the individual and how personal mindset
can make all the difference in business for those
4. Value for the company from individuals and their companies. Our new mindset
revealing/managing mindsets tool is all about exploiting that personal thinking in
contrast to the prevailing view, which relies on the
In combination with resistance to change, ever- supposed wisdom of crowds.
more-turbulent market forces are creating growing This focus on personal mindsets as the foundation-
tensions in many companies as it becomes increas- al trigger for much contemporary strategic work
ingly difficult to rely on established business formu- differs from normative current studies, which com-
las. As a remedy, we argue that individuals must be monly discuss the need to neutralize cognitive bias
recognized as such rather than as components of because it distorts reasoning and is thought to result
collectives and that their reflective capabilities in less-than-optimal decisions (Kahneman, Lovallo, &
must be captured. Sibony, 2011). This article also differs fundamentally
An individual’s mindset determines what that per- from those discussing how companies can support
son attends to, what conclusions they draw, and what knowledge sharing (Sunstein & Hastie, 2014). Set
they decide to do. Organizational cultures represent against the most examined issue in strategy re-
a kind of institutionalized mindset and company search–—how to narrow the gap between formulation
processes, systems, and structures are representa- and implementation (e.g., Crittenden & Crittenden,
tions of the mindsets that created them. Business 2008)–—we address a much earlier phase in the strat-
models and strategies are also grounded in specific egy process. We also diverge from studies that aim to
mindsets. In short, mindsets are like maps of the increase the success of business innovation by inves-
business environment: the better and more relevant tigating the actual innovation process (Brown &
the map, the better the company will fare. This, Anthony, 2011; Christensen, Bartman, & Van Bever,
then, is the challenge: the more dynamic the business 2016) rather than how the preceding situation was
environment, the more mindsets must be reflected interpreted. All such studies seem to share three
on to sustain the company’s competitiveness. A focus assumptions: (1) people share foundational assump-
on shared meaning among managers may facilitate tions about the business, (2) the key challenge is to
swift and smooth action, but it creates inertia when encourage the voicing and sharing of ideas, and (3) a
change is necessary. This is not easy, as fundamental smaller gap between strategy formulation and
assumptions and beliefs must be questioned or al- implementation makes success more likely. In con-
tered, and disruptive market situations seem to at- trast, we argue that people may have very different
tract entrepreneurs who are particularly open to new underlying mindsets, that strategizing starts earlier
possibilities in terms of key elements: capabilities, than current studies suggest, and that strategizing
BUSHOR-1467; No. of Pages 10

“One of these days, things are going to change!” How do you make sense of market disruption? 9

should begin with recognizing individuals and diag- (potentially implying hidden conflicts) may be able to
nosing their essential mindsets. collaborate, especially if they address their
differences, perhaps even turning them into possi-
4.1. Avoiding decision-making pitfalls bilities. Revealing and analyzing outliers may also be
revealing, as those with deviating views can be
Our tool can be used collectively or for self-diagnosis. especially important. What matters is who the outlier
The results can be interpreted individually or in is; is it the CEO, or someone else?
teams; in the former case, they can be used to The tool we describe is intended to avoid or
initiate and direct capability and self-development mitigate many of the decision-making pitfalls faced
(e.g., to identify personal learning goals or rele- by today’s managers. First, an emphasis on reflec-
vant management literature). Discussing individual tive capabilities helps to counter what Alvesson and
and group findings in teams may also be of value in Spicer (2016) recently described as the stupidity
developing team working skills and reflecting on paradox: how the most educated managers are
differences and their origins. While most of the often unable or unwilling to use their reflective
literature on strategy and management focuses on and cognitive capacities in the workplace or to think
setting strategies, implementing change, and dif- outside the box. They recommended deliberate
fusing change, we are concerned with what trig- measures to guard against the functional stupidity
gers these processes. The dimensions and content that encourages smart people not to think or reflect
of mindsets as elaborated here are also applicable at the workgroup level. Second, the increasing
to strategy work and can be useful, for example, in availability of information does not automatically
simulating different strategic goals and ways of lead to better decision making. We argue that
operating. Our proposal broadens strategic options reflective capabilities gain in significance, offering
beyond the prevailing range of streamlining cur- truly unique opportunities if they can keep up with
rent internal processes and adding products or an ever-accelerating environment. In some cases, a
services. In particular, the mindset framework company may have exhausted all other options.
encourages discussion of customer understanding, While recognizing that individuals and mindset
which continues to be approached in a narrow and storming clearly have potential, there are also traps.
company-focused way. Positions on the maps might For one thing, it may be risky to deviate from estab-
then be used to discuss the methods and require- lished approaches to strategic planning. The costs
ments for shifting the company from its current would not be substantial, but experimenting with
position, perhaps using tools based on partnering new approaches takes courage. The further one de-
potential and current state (Dalsace & Jap, 2017) parts from familiar ways, the less comfortable some
or customer journey touchpoints (Rosenbaum, may feel about revealing their business priorities or
Otalora, & Ramírez, 2017). their business vision. The opposite may also happen:
An individual manager’s view of business is people whose strategy ideas are not listened to may
grounded not only in his/her personal experience quit, taking their ideas with them (see Felin, 2016).
but also in how colleagues think, how the company Additionally, it may be risky to be first to market with
has organized its business, standards within the a novel idea (see Christensen’s paradox, mentioned
industry, and what is considered best practice. In in Section 1). This explains why a company must have
many cases, underlying beliefs about focus and full executive commitment and support and must
scope influence managers’ logics in relation to cus- devote full attention to implementation constraints,
tomers, offerings, and markets, creating a corre- as in the case of any organizational change. The
spondence between these. In this way, individual transition will be smoother where the new transfor-
managers may come to understand their own un- mation strategy is supported by fundamentals such as
derlying mindset by using the tool, as well as using organization culture and leadership, personnel skills,
the interpretation guide to reflect on other mind- company structures and policies, and customers.
sets. If other managers complete the same mindset Depending on its extent, transformation demands a
test, a comparison of findings can be expected to time perspective that allows for change and a will-
inspire reflection and discussion concerning action ingness to make adjustments along the way.
points for the company. Each of us has beliefs and is guided by them,
The different result configurations–—for example, whether we admit this or not. Some may deny this
whether the map shows more distributed or more or consider it less rational or objective and more
concentrated responses–—have differing implica- biased or emotional. What we wish to highlight is
tions. The spread of responses may, for example, that mindsets are an intrinsic element of how we
reveal or explain hidden or overt conflicts in the make sense of what is happening in the world,
team. Yet, even individuals with different mindsets and how we envision the future. For that reason,
BUSHOR-1467; No. of Pages 10

10 T. Strandvik et al.

we need to have the necessary tools to identify our Dietz, M., Härle, P., & Khanna, S. (2016). A digital crack in
mindsets and to develop an understanding of how banking’s business model. New York, NY: McKinsey.
Felin, T. (2016). When strategy walks out the door. MIT Sloan
they work. This becomes clear, for example, Management Review, 58(1), 94—96.
when companies recruit, or when they seek to Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011). Before you make
change a key executive’s mindset. Especially in that big decision. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 50—60.
market situations where much or everything is Kowalkowski, C., & Ulaga, W. (2017). Service strategy in action:
changing, it becomes important to capture how A practical guide for growing your B2B service and solution
business. Helsinki, Finland: Service Strategy Press.
our minds work. Normann, R. (2001). Reframing business: When the map changes
the landscape. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Rosenbaum, M. S., Otalora, M. L., & Ramírez, G. C. (2017).
How to create a realistic customer journey map. Business
References Horizons, 60(1), 143—150.
Rydén, P., Ringberg, T., & Wilke, R. (2015). How managers’
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2016). The stupidity paradox: shared mental models of business-customer interactions
The power and pitfalls of functional stupidity at work. create different sensemaking of social media. Journal of
London, UK: Profile Books. Interactive Marketing, 31(3), 1—16.
Brown, B., & Anthony, S. D. (2011). How P&G tripled its innova- Schulman, D. (2016). How I did it . . . PayPal’s CEO on creating
tion success rate. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 64—72. products for underserved markets. Harvard Business Review,
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new 94(2), 35—38.
technologies cause great firms to fail. Cambridge, MA: Har- Stone, B. (2015). How I did it . . . Twitter’s cofounder on creating
vard Business School Press. opportunities. Harvard Business Review, 93(6), 39—42.
Christensen, C. M., Bartman, T., & Van Bever, D. (2016). The hard Storbacka, K., & Nenonen, S. (2015). Learning with the market:
truth about business model innovation. MIT Sloan Manage- Facilitating market innovation. Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment Review, 58(1), 30—40. ment, 44(1), 73—82.
Crittenden, V. L., & Crittenden, W. F. (2008). Building a capable Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2014). Making dumb groups smarter.
organization: The eight levers of strategy implementation. Harvard Business Review, 92(12), 90—98.
Business Horizons, 51(4), 301—309. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy, and
Dalsace, F., & Jap, S. (2017). The friend or foe fallacy: innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 172—194.
Why your best customers may not need your friendship.
Business Horizons, 60(4), 483—493.