8 step framework to problem solving from mckinsey

McKinsey Problem Solving: Six steps to solve any problem and tell a persuasive story

The McKinsey problem solving process is a series of mindset shifts and structured approaches to thinking about and solving challenging problems. It is a useful approach for anyone working in the knowledge and information economy and needs to communicate ideas to other people.

Over the past several years of creating StrategyU, advising an undergraduates consulting group and running workshops for clients, I have found over and over again that the principles taught on this site and in this guide are a powerful way to improve the type of work and communication you do in a business setting.

When I first set out to teach these skills to the undergraduate consulting group at my alma mater, I was still working at BCG. I was spending my day building compelling presentations, yet was at a loss for how to teach these principles to the students I would talk with at night.

Through many rounds of iteration, I was able to land on a structured process and way of framing some of these principles such that people could immediately apply them to their work.

While the “official” McKinsey problem solving process is seven steps, I have outline my own spin on things – from experience at McKinsey and Boston Consulting Group. Here are six steps that will help you solve problems like a McKinsey Consultant:

Step #1: School is over, stop worrying about “what” to make and worry about the process, or the “how”

When I reflect back on my first role at McKinsey, I realize that my biggest challenge was unlearning everything I had learned over the previous 23 years. Throughout school you are asked to do specific things. For example, you are asked to write a 5 page paper on Benjamin Franklin — double spaced, 12 font and answering two or three specific questions.

In school, to be successful you follow these rules as close as you can. However, in consulting there are no rules on the “what.” Typically the problem you are asked to solve is ambiguous and complex — exactly why they hire you. In consulting, you are taught the rules around the “how” and have to then fill in the what.

The “how” can be taught and this entire site is founded on that belief. Here are some principles to get started:

Step #2: Thinking like a consultant requires a mindset shift

There are two pre-requisites to thinking like a consultant. Without these two traits you will struggle:

• A healthy obsession looking for a “better way” to do things
• Being open minded to shifting ideas and other approaches

In business school, I was sitting in one class when I noticed that all my classmates were doing the same thing — everyone was coming up with reasons why something should should not be done.

As I’ve spent more time working, I’ve realized this is a common phenomenon. The more you learn, the easier it becomes to come up with reasons to support the current state of affairs — likely driven by the status quo bias — an emotional state that favors not changing things. Even the best consultants will experience this emotion, but they are good at identifying it and pushing forward.

Key point : Creating an effective and persuasive consulting like presentation requires a comfort with uncertainty combined with a slightly delusional belief that you can figure anything out.

Step #3: Define the problem and make sure you are not solving a symptom

Before doing the work, time should be spent on defining the actual problem. Too often, people are solutions focused when they think about fixing something. Let’s say a company is struggling with profitability. Someone might define the problem as “we do not have enough growth.” This is jumping ahead to solutions — the goal may be to drive more growth, but this is not the actual issue. It is a symptom of a deeper problem.

Consider the following information:

• Costs have remained relatively constant and are actually below industry average so revenue must be the issue
• Revenue has been increasing, but at a slowing rate
• This company sells widgets and have had no slowdown on the number of units it has sold over the last five years
• However, the price per widget is actually below where it was five years ago
• There have been new entrants in the market in the last three years that have been backed by Venture Capital money and are aggressively pricing their products below costs

In a real-life project there will definitely be much more information and a team may take a full week coming up with a problem statement . Given the information above, we may come up with the following problem statement:

Problem Statement : The company is struggling to increase profitability due to decreasing prices driven by new entrants in the market. The company does not have a clear strategy to respond to the price pressure from competitors and lacks an overall product strategy to compete in this market.

Step 4: Dive in, make hypotheses and try to figure out how to “solve” the problem

Now the fun starts!

There are generally two approaches to thinking about information in a structured way and going back and forth between the two modes is what the consulting process is founded on.

First is top-down . This is what you should start with, especially for a newer “consultant.” This involves taking the problem statement and structuring an approach. This means developing multiple hypotheses — key questions you can either prove or disprove.

Given our problem statement, you may develop the following three hypotheses:

• Company X has room to improve its pricing strategy to increase profitability
• Company X can explore new market opportunities unlocked by new entrants
• Company X can explore new business models or operating models due to advances in technology

As you can see, these three statements identify different areas you can research and either prove or disprove. In a consulting team, you may have a “workstream leader” for each statement.

Once you establish the structure you you may shift to the second type of analysis: a bottom-up approach . This involves doing deep research around your problem statement, testing your hypotheses, running different analysis and continuing to ask more questions. As you do the analysis, you will begin to see different patterns that may unlock new questions, change your thinking or even confirm your existing hypotheses. You may need to tweak your hypotheses and structure as you learn new information.

A project vacillates many times between these two approaches. Here is a hypothetical timeline of a project:

Step 5: Make a slides like a consultant

The next step is taking the structure and research and turning it into a slide. When people see slides from McKinsey and BCG, they see something that is compelling and unique, but don’t really understand all the work that goes into those slides. Both companies have a healthy obsession (maybe not to some people!) with how things look, how things are structured and how they are presented.

They also don’t understand how much work is spent on telling a compelling “story.” The biggest mistake people make in the business world is mistaking showing a lot of information versus telling a compelling story. This is an easy mistake to make — especially if you are the one that did hours of analysis. It may seem important, but when it comes down to making a slide and a presentation, you end up deleting more information rather than adding. You really need to remember the following:

Data matters, but stories change hearts and minds

Here are four quick ways to improve your presentations:

Tip #1 — Format, format, format

Both McKinsey and BCG had style templates that were obsessively followed. Some key rules I like to follow:

• Make sure all text within your slide body is the same font size (harder than you would think)
• Do not go outside of the margins into the white space on the side
• All titles throughout the presentation should be 2 lines or less and stay the same font size
• Each slide should typically only make one strong point

Tip #2 — Titles are the takeaway

The title of the slide should be the key insight or takeaway and the slide area should prove the point. The below slide is an oversimplification of this:

Even in consulting, I found that people struggled with simplifying a message to one key theme per slide. If something is going to be presented live, the simpler the better. In reality, you are often giving someone presentations that they will read in depth and more information may make sense.

To go deeper, check out these 20 presentation and powerpoint tips .

Tip #3 — Have “MECE” Ideas for max persuasion

“MECE” means mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive — meaning all points listed cover the entire range of ideas while also being unique and differentiated from each other.

An extreme example would be this:

• Slide title: There are seven continents
• Slide content: The seven continents are North America, South America, Europe, Africa Asia, Antarctica, Australia

The list of continents provides seven distinct points that when taken together are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive . The MECE principle is not perfect — it is more of an ideal to push your logic in the right direction. Use it to continually improve and refine your story.

Applying this to a profitability problem at the highest level would look like this:

Goal: Increase profitability

2nd level: We can increase revenue or decrease costs

3rd level: We can increase revenue by selling more or increasing prices

Each level is MECE. It is almost impossible to argue against any of this (unless you are willing to commit accounting fraud!).

Tip #4 — Leveraging the Pyramid Principle

The pyramid principle is an approach popularized by Barbara Minto and essential to the structured problem solving approach I learned at McKinsey. Learning this approach has changed the way I look at any presentation since.

Here is a rough outline of how you can think about the pyramid principle as a way to structure a presentation:

As you build a presentation, you may have three sections for each hypothesis. As you think about the overall story, the three hypothesis (and the supporting evidence) will build on each other as a “story” to answer the defined problem. There are two ways to think about doing this — using inductive or deductive reasoning:

If we go back to our profitability example from above, you would say that increasing profitability was the core issue we developed. Lets assume that through research we found that our three hypotheses were true. Given this, you may start to build a high level presentation around the following three points:

These three ideas not only are distinct but they also build on each other. Combined, they tell a story of what the company should do and how they should react. Each of these three “points” may be a separate section in the presentation followed by several pages of detailed analysis. There may also be a shorter executive summary version of 5–10 pages that gives the high level story without as much data and analysis.

Step 6: The only way to improve is to get feedback and continue to practice

Ultimately, this process is not something you will master overnight. I’ve been consulting, either working for a firm or on my own for more than 10 years and am still looking for ways to make better presentations, become more persuasive and get feedback on individual slides.

The process never ends.

The best way to improve fast is to be working on a great team . Look for people around you that do this well and ask them for feedback. The more feedback, the more iterations and more presentations you make, the better you will become. Good luck!

If you enjoyed this post, you’ll get a kick out of all the free lessons I’ve shared that go a bit deeper. Check them out here .

Do you have a toolkit for business problem solving? I created Think Like a Strategy Consultant as an online course to make the tools of strategy consultants accessible to driven professionals, executives, and consultants. This course teaches you how to synthesize information into compelling insights, structure your information in ways that help you solve problems, and develop presentations that resonate at the C-Level. Click here to learn more or if you are interested in getting started now, enroll in the self-paced version ($497) or hands-on coaching version ($997). Both versions include lifetime access and all future updates.

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

How to master the seven-step problem-solving process The McKinsey Podcast

Structured problem solving can help address complex business challenges.

• Episode Website
• More Episodes
• 2024 McKinsey & Company

More by McKinsey

Resources >

Mckinsey approach to problem solving, a guide to the 7-step mckinsey problem solving process.

McKinsey and Company is recognized for its rigorous approach to problem solving. They train their consultants on their seven-step process that anyone can learn.

This resource guides you through that process, largely informed by the McKinsey Staff Paper 66. It also includes a PowerPoint Toolkit with slide templates of each step of the process that you can download and customize for your own use.

In this guide you'll learn:

Overview of the mckinsey approach to problem solving, problem solving process.

• Problem Definition & Problem Statement Worksheet

Stakeholder Analysis Worksheet

Hypothesis trees, issue trees, analyses and workplan, synthesize findings, craft recommendations, distinctiveness practices, harness the power of collaboration, sources and additional reading, request the mckinsey approach to problem solving.

Problem solving — finding the optimal solution to a given business opportunity or challenge — is the very heart of how consultants create client impact, and considered the most important skill for success at McKinsey.

The characteristic “McKinsey method” of problem solving is a structured, inductive approach that can be used to solve any problem. Using this standardized process saves us from reinventing the problem-solving wheel, and allows for greater focus on distinctiveness in the solution. Every new McKinsey associate must learn this method on his or her first day with the firm.

There are four fundamental disciplines of the McKinsey method:

1. Problem definition

A thorough understanding and crisp definition of the problem.

2. The problem-solving process

Structuring the problem, prioritizing the issues, planning analyses, conducting analyses, synthesizing findings, and developing recommendations.

3. Distinctiveness practices

Constructing alternative perspectives; identifying relationships; distilling the essence of an issue, analysis, or recommendation; and staying ahead of others in the problem-solving process.

4. Collaboratio n

Actively seeking out client, customer, and supplier perspectives, as well as internal and external expert insight and knowledge.

Once the problem has been defined, the problem-solving process proceeds with a series of steps:

• Structure the problem
• Prioritize the issues
• Plan analyses
• Conduct analyses
• Synthesize findings
• Develop recommendations

Not all problems require strict adherence to the process. Some steps may be truncated, such as when specific knowledge or analogies from other industries make it possible to construct hypotheses and associated workplans earlier than their formal place in the process. Nonetheless, it remains important to be capable of executing every step in the basic process.

When confronted with a new and complex problem, this process establishes a path to defining and disaggregating the problem in a way that will allow the team to move to a solution. The process also ensures nothing is missed and concentrates efforts on the highest-impact areas. Adhering to the process gives the client clear steps to follow, building confidence, credibility, and long-term capability.

Problem Definition & Problem Statement Worksheet

The most important step in your entire project is to first carefully define the problem. The problem definition will serve the guide all of the team’s work, so it is critical to ensure that all key stakeholders agree that it is the right problem to be solving.

Problem Statement Worksheet

This is a helpful tool to use to clearly define the problem. There are often dozens of issues that a team could focus on, and it is often not obvious how to define the problem. In any real-life situation, there are many possible problem statements. Your choice of problem statement will serve to constrain the range of possible solutions.

• Use a question . The problem statement should be phrased as a question, such that the answer will be the solution. Make the question SMART: specific, measurable, action-oriented, relevant, and time-bound. Example: “How can XYZ Bank close the $100 million profitability gap in two years?”
• Context . What are the internal and external situations and complications facing the client, such as industry trends, relative position within the industry, capability gaps, financial flexibility, and so on?
• Success criteria . Understand how the client and the team define success and failure. In addition to any quantitative measures identified in the basic question, identify other important quantitative or qualitative measures of success, including timing of impact, visibility of improvement, client capability building required, necessary mindset shifts, and so on.
• Scope and constraints . Scope most commonly covers the markets or segments of interest, whereas constraints govern restrictions on the nature of solutions within those markets or segments.
• Stakeholders . Explore who really makes the decisions — who decides, who can help, and who can block.
• Key sources of insight . What best-practice expertise, knowledge, and engagement approaches already exist? What knowledge from the client, suppliers, and customers needs to be accessed? Be as specific as possible: who, what, when, how, and why.

The problem definition should not be vague, without clear measures of success. Rather, it should be a SMART definition:

• Action-oriented

Example situation – A family on Friday evening

Scenario: A mother, a father, and their two teenage children have all arrived home on a Friday at 6 p.m. The family has not prepared dinner for Friday evening. The daughter has lacrosse practice on Saturday and an essay to write for English class due on Monday. The son has theatre rehearsal on both Saturday and Sunday and will need one parent to drive him to the high school both days, though he can get a ride home with a friend. The family dog, a poodle, must be taken to the groomer on Saturday morning. The mother will need to spend time this weekend working on assignments for her finance class she is taking as part of her Executive MBA. The father plans to go on a 100-mile bike ride, which he can do either Saturday or Sunday. The family has two cars, but one is at the body shop. They are trying to save money to pay for an addition to their house.

What is the problem definition?

A statement of facts does not focus the problem solving:

It is 6 p.m. The family has not made plans for dinner, and they are hungry.

A question guides the team towards a solution:

1. What should the family do for dinner on Friday night?

2. Should the family cook dinner or order delivery?

3. What should the family cook for dinner?

4. What should the family cook for dinner that will not require spending more than $40 on groceries?

5. To cook dinner, what do they need to pick up from the supermarket?

6. How can the family prepare dinner within the next hour using ingredients they already have in the house?

In completing the Problem Statement Worksheet, you are prompted to define the key stakeholders.

As you become involved in the problem-solving process, you should expand the question of key stakeholders to include what the team wants from them and what they want from the team, their values and motivations (helpful and unhelpful), and the communications mechanisms that will be most effective for each of them.

Using the Stakeholder Analysis Worksheet allows you to comprehensively identify:

• Stakeholders
• What you need from them
• Where they are
• What they need from you

The two most helpful techniques for rigorously structuring any problem are hypothesis trees and issue trees. Each of these techniques disaggregates the primary question into a cascade of issues or hypotheses that, when addressed, will together answer the primary question.

A hypothesis tree might break down the same question into two or more hypotheses. 

Example: Alpha Manufacturing, Inc.

Problem Statement: How can Alpha increase EBITDA by $13M (to $50M) by 2025?

The hypotheses might be:

• Alpha can add $125M revenues by expanding to new customers, adding $8M of EBITDA
• Alpha can reduce costs to improve EBITDA by $5M

These hypotheses will be further disaggregated into subsidiary hypotheses at the next level of the tree.

The aim at this stage is to structure the problem into discrete, mutually exclusive pieces that are small enough to yield to analysis and that, taken together, are collectively exhaustive.

Articulating the problem as hypotheses, rather than issues, is the preferred approach because it leads to a more focused analysis of the problem. Questions to ask include:

• Is it testable – can you prove or disprove it?
• It is open to debate? If it cannot be wrong, it is simply a statement of fact and unlikely to produce keen insight.
• If you reversed your hypothesis – literally, hypothesized that the exact opposite were true – would you care about the difference it would make to your overall logic?
• If you shared your hypothesis with the CEO, would it sound naive or obvious?
• Does it point directly to an action or actions that the client might take?

Quickly developing a powerful hypothesis tree enables us to develop solutions more rapidly that will have real impact. This can sometimes seem premature to clients, who might find the “solution” reached too quickly and want to see the analysis behind it.

Take care to explain the approach (most important, that a hypothesis is not an answer) and its benefits (that a good hypothesis is the basis of a proven means of successful problem solving and avoids “boiling the ocean”).

Often, the team has insufficient knowledge to build a complete hypothesis tree at the start of an engagement. In these cases, it is best to begin by structuring the problem using an issue tree.

An issue tree is best set out as a series of open questions in sentence form. For example, “How can the client minimize its tax burden?” is more useful than “Tax.” Open questions – those that begin with what, how, or why– produce deeper insights than closed ones. In some cases, an issue tree can be sharpened by toggling between issue and hypothesis – working forward from an issue to identify the hypothesis, and back from the hypothesis to sharpen the relevant open question.

Once the problem has been structured, the next step is to prioritize the issues or hypotheses on which the team will focus its work. When prioritizing, it is common to use a two-by-two matrix – e.g., a matrix featuring “impact” and “ease of impact” as the two axes.

Applying some of these prioritization criteria will knock out portions of the issue tree altogether. Consider testing the issues against them all, albeit quickly, to help drive the prioritization process.

Once the criteria are defined, prioritizing should be straightforward: Simply map the issues to the framework and focus on those that score highest against the criteria.

As the team conducts analysis and learns more about the problem and the potential solution, make sure to revisit the prioritization matrix so as to remain focused on the highest-priority issues.

The issues might be:

• How can Alpha increase revenue?
• How can Alpha reduce cost?

Each of these issues is then further broken down into deeper insights to solutions.

If the prioritization has been carried out effectively, the team will have clarified the key issues or hypotheses that must be subjected to analysis. The aim of these analyses is to prove the hypotheses true or false, or to develop useful perspectives on each key issue. Now the task is to design an effective and efficient workplan for conducting the analyses.

Transforming the prioritized problem structure into a workplan involves two main tasks:

• Define the blocks of work that need to be undertaken. Articulate as clearly as possible the desired end products and the analysis necessary to produce them, and estimate the resources and time required.
• Sequence the work blocks in a way that matches the available resources to the need to deliver against key engagement milestones (e.g., important meetings, progress reviews), as well as to the overall pacing of the engagement (i.e., weekly or twice-weekly meetings, and so on).

A good workplan will detail the following for each issue or hypothesis: analyses, end products, sources, and timing and responsibility. Developing the workplan takes time; doing it well requires working through the definition of each element of the workplan in a rigorous and methodical fashion.

This is the most difficult element of the problem-solving process. After a period of being immersed in the details, it is crucial to step back and distinguish the important from the merely interesting. Distinctive problem solvers seek the essence of the story that will underpin a crisp recommendation for action.

Although synthesis appears, formally speaking, as the penultimate step in the process, it should happen throughout. Ideally, after you have made almost any analytical progress, you should attempt to articulate the “Day 1” or “Week 1” answer. Continue to synthesize as you go along. This will remind the team of the question you are trying to answer, assist prioritization, highlight the logical links of the emerging solution, and ensure that you have a story ready to articulate at all times during the study.

McKinsey’s primary tool for synthesizing is the pyramid principle. Essentially, this principle asserts that every synthesis should explain a single concept, per the “governing thought.” The supporting ideas in the synthesis form a thought hierarchy proceeding in a logical structure from the most detailed facts to the governing thought, ruthlessly excluding the interesting but irrelevant.

While this hierarchy can be laid out as a tree (like with issue and hypothesis trees), the best problem solvers capture it by creating dot-dash storylines — the Pyramid Structure for Grouping Arguments.

Pyramid Structure for Grouping Arguments

• Focus on action. Articulate the thoughts at each level of the pyramid as declarative sentences, not as topics. For example, “expansion” is a topic; “We need to expand into the European market” is a declarative sentence.
• Use storylines. PowerPoint is poor at highlighting logical connections, therefore is not a good tool for synthesis. A storyline will clarify elements that may be ambiguous in the PowerPoint presentation.
• Keep the emerging storyline visible. Many teams find that posting the storyline or story- board on the team-room wall helps keep the thinking focused. It also helps in bringing the client along.
• Use the situation-complication-resolution structure. The situation is the reason there is action to be taken. The com- plication is why the situation needs thinking through – typically an industry or client challenge. The resolution is the answer.
• Down the pyramid: does each governing thought pose a single question that is answered completely by the group of boxes below it?
• Across: is each level within the pyramid MECE?
• Up: does each group of boxes, taken together, provide one answer – one “so what?” – that is essentially the governing thought above it?
• Test the solution. What would it mean if your hypotheses all came true?

Three Horizons of Engagement Planning

It’s useful to match the workplan to three horizons:

• What is expected at the end of the engagement
• What is expected at key progress reviews
• What is due at daily and/or weekly team meetings

The detail in the workplan will typically be greater for the near term (the next week) than for the long term (the study horizon), especially early in a new engagement when considerable ambiguity about the end state remains.

It is at this point that we address the client’s questions: “What do I do, and how do I do it?” This means not offering actionable recommendations, along with a plan and client commitment for implementation.

The essence of this step is to translate the overall solution into the actions required to deliver sustained impact. A pragmatic action plan should include:

• Relevant initiatives, along with a clear sequence, timing, and mapping of activities required
• Clear owners for each initiative
• Key success factors and the challenges involved in delivering on the initiatives

Crucial questions to ask as you build recommendations for organizational change are:

• Does each person who needs to change (from the CEO to the front line) understand what he or she needs to change and why, and is he or she committed to it?
• Are key leaders and role models throughout the organization personally committed to behaving differently?
• Has the client set in place the necessary formal mechanisms to reinforce the desired change?
• Does the client have the skills and confidence to behave in the desired new way?

Great problem solvers identify unique disruptions and discontinuities, novel insights, and step-out opportunities that lead to truly distinctive impact. This is done by applying a number of practices throughout the problem-solving process to help develop these insights.

Expand: Construct multiple perspectives

Identifying alternative ways of looking at the problem expands the range of possibilities, opens you up to innovative ideas, and allows you to formulate more powerful hypotheses. Questions that help here include:

• What changes if I think from the perspective of a customer, or a supplier, or a frontline employee, or a competitor?
• How have other industries viewed and addressed this same problem?
• What would it mean if the client sought to run the company like a low-cost airline or a cosmetics manufacturer?

Link: Identify relationships

Strong problem solvers discern connections and recognize patterns in two different ways:

• They seek out the ways in which different problem elements – issues, hypotheses, analyses, work elements, findings, answers, and recommendations – relate to one another.
• They use these relationships throughout the basic problem-solving process to identify efficient problem-solving approaches, novel solutions, and more powerful syntheses.

Distill: Find the essence

Cutting through complexity to identify the heart of the problem and its solution is a critical skill.

• Identify the critical problem elements. Are there some issues, approaches, or options that can be eliminated completely because they won’t make a significant difference to the solution?
• Consider how complex the different elements are and how long it will take to complete them. Wherever possible, quickly advance simpler parts of the problem that can inform more complex or time-consuming elements.

Lead: Stay ahead/step back

Without getting ahead of the client, you cannot be distinctive. Paradoxically, to get ahead – and stay ahead – it is often necessary to step back from the problem to validate or revalidate the approach and the solution.

• Spend time thinking one or more steps ahead of the client and team.
• Constantly check and challenge the rigor of the underlying data and analysis.
• Stress-test the whole emerging recommendation
• Challenge the solution against a set of hurdles. Does it satisfy the criteria for success as set out on the Problem Statement Worksheet?

No matter how skilled, knowledgeable, or experienced you are, you will never create the most distinctive solution on your own. The best problem solvers know how to leverage the power of their team, clients, the Firm, and outside parties. Seeking the right expertise at the right time, and leveraging it in the right way, are ultimately how we bring distinctiveness to our work, how we maximize efficiency, and how we learn.

When solving a problem, it is important to ask, “Have I accessed all the sources of insight that are available?” Here are the sources you should consider:

• Your core team
• The client’s suppliers and customers
• Internal experts and knowledge
• External sources of knowledge
• Communications specialists

The key here is to think open, not closed. Opening up to varied sources of data and perspectives furthers our mission to develop truly innovative and distinctive solutions for our clients.

• McKinsey Staff Paper 66 — not published by McKinsey but possibly found through an internet search
• The McKinsey Way , 1999, by Ethan M. Rasiel

For consultants

© Copyright 2024 by Umbrex

Designed by our friends at Filez

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

The Easy Guide to the McKinsey 7S Model

Updated on: 10 January 2023

Although invented in the late 1970s, the McKinsey 7S model still helps businesses of all sizes succeed. A conceptual framework to guide the execution of strategy. 

In this guide, we’ll walk you through the 7S of the McKinsey Framework and how to apply it to evaluate and improve performance. 

McKinsey 7-S Model Definition 

The McKinsey 7S model is one of the most popular strategic planning tools .  Businesses commonly use it to analyze internal elements that affect organizational success. 

The model recognizes 7 of these elements and considers them to be interlinked, therefore it’s difficult to make significant progress in one area without making progress in other areas as well. Accordingly, to be successful, the organization should ensure that all these elements are aligned and reinforced.

The model divides these 7 elements into two categories;

Hard elements – Strategy, Structure, Systems (these are easier to be identified and defined and can be directly influenced by the management)  

Soft elements – Shared Values, Skills, Style, Staff (these are harder to be defined because they are less tangible, but are just as important as the hard elements) 

You can use the framework 

• To successfully execute new strategies
• To analyze how different key parts of your organization work together
• To facilitate changes in the organization 
• To help align processes during a merger or acquisition
• To support management thinking during strategy implementation and change management

The 7 Elements of the McKinsey 7-S Framework 

• Shared values

Let’s dig into these elements in more detail. 

Strategy 

A strategy is a plan the company develops to maintain its competitive advantage in the market. It consists of a set of decisions and action steps that need to be taken in response to the changes in the company’s external environment which includes its customers and competitors. 

An effective strategy would find external opportunities and develop the necessary resources and capabilities to convert the environmental changes into sources of new competitive advantage. 

The structure is the organizational chart of the company. It represents how the different units and divisions of the company are organized, who reports to whom and the division and integration of tasks. The structure of a company could be hierarchical or flat, centralized or decentralized, autonomous or outsourced, or specialized or integrated. Compared to most other elements, this one is more visible and easier to change. 

Systems 

These are the primary and secondary activities that are part of the company’s daily functioning.  Systems include core processes such as product development and support activities such as human resources or accounting. 

Skills are the skill set and capabilities of the organization’s human resources . Core competencies or skills of employees are intangible but they a major role in attaining sustainable competitive advantage. 

The most valuable strategic asset of an organization is its staff or human resources. This element focuses on the number of employees, recruitment, development of employees, remuneration and other motivational considerations. 

This refers to the management style of the company leadership. It includes the actions they take, the way they behave, and how they interact.  

Shared Values

Shared values are also referred to as superordinate goals and are the element that is in the core of the model. It is the collective value system that is central to the organizational culture and represents the company’s standards and norms, attitudes, and beliefs. It’s regarded as the organization’s most fundamental building block that provides a foundation for the other six elements. 

How to Use the McKinsey 7-S Model

The model can be used to do a gap analysis or to determine the gap between what the company is currently doing and what it needs to do to successfully execute the strategy. 

Step 1: Analyze the current situation of your organization

This is where you need to understand the current situation of the organization with regard to the 7 elements. Analyzing them closely will give you a chance to see if they are aligned effectively.

The following checklist questions will help you explore your situation. 

Strategy  

• What’s the objective of your company strategy? 
• How do you use your resources and capabilities to achieve that?
• What makes you stand out from your competitors? 
• How do you compete in the market? 
• How do you plan to adapt in the face of changing market conditions?
• What’s your organizational structure ?
• Who makes the decisions? Who reports to whom? 
• Is decision-making centralized or decentralized?
• How do the employees align themselves to the strategy?
• How is information shared across the organization?
• What are the primary processes and systems of the organization? 
• What are the system controls and where are they?
• How do you track progress?
• What are the processes and rules the team sticks with to keep on track? 
• What are the core competencies of the organization? Are these skills sufficiently available? 
• Are there any skill gaps?
• Are the employees aptly skilled to do their job? 
• What do you do to monitor, evaluate and improve skills? 
• What is it that the company is known for doing well? 
• How many employees are there? 
• What are the current staffing requirements? 
• Are there any gaps in the required resources? 
• What needs to be done to address them?
• What is the management style like? 
• How do the employees respond to this style?
• Are employees competitive, collaborative or cooperative? 
• What kind of tasks, behaviors, and deliverables does the leadership reward? 
• What kind of teams are there in the organization? Are there real teams or are they just nominal groups? 
• What are the mission and vision of the organization? 
• What are your ideal and real values? 
• What are the core values the organization was founded upon? 
• How does the company incorporate these values in daily life? 

Step 2: Determine the ideal situation of the organization 

Specify where you ideally want to be and the optimal organizational design you want to achieve, with the help of the senior management. This will make it easier to set your goals and come up with a solid action plan to implement the strategy. 

Since the optimal position you want to be in is still not known to you, you will have to collect data and insight through research on the organizational designs of competitors and how they coped with organizational change. Answering the questions above are just the starting point. 

To understand what your organization is best at, use the Hedgehog Concept by Jim Collins

Step 3: Develop your action plan

Here you will identify which areas need to be realigned and how you would do that. The result of this step should be a detailed action plan listing the individual steps you need to take to get to your desired situation, along with other important details such as task owners, timeframes, precautions and so on.

Step 4: Implement the action plan 

Successfully executing the action plan is depended on who executes it. Therefore you need to make sure that you assign the tasks to the right people in your organization. Additionally, you can also hire consultants to guide the process. 

Step 5: Review the seven elements from time to time

Since the seven elements are subjected to constant change, reviewing them periodically is essential. A change in one element will affect all the others, which will require you to implement a new organization design. Review the situation frequently to stay aware of the remedial action you might want to take.

Advantages and Disadvantages of McKinsey 7-S Model 

• Considers 7 elements of strategic fit, which is more effective than the traditional model that only focuses on strategy and structure
• It helps align the processes, systems, people, and values of an organization
• Since it analyzes each element and the relationship between them in detail, it ensures that you miss no gaps caused by changed strategies
• Helps organizations identify how they should align the different key parts of the organization to achieve their goals

Disadvantages

• It requires the organization to do a lot of research and benchmarking, which makes it time-consuming
• It only focuses on internal elements, while paying no attention to the external elements that may affect organizational performance.
• It requires the help of senior management which may not be readily available depending on how busy they are

To analyze and understand the performance or the functioning of the organization use Weisboard’s six box model framework.

What’s Your Take on the McKinsey 7-S Model? 

The McKinsey 7S model is a proven framework for helping organizations understand how to get from their current situation to the situation they prefer to be in. 

Maybe you are a big fan of the McKinsey 7S model. Maybe you prefer another strategy framework that has worked well for you. We’d love to hear what you feel about the subject; give your feedback in the comments section below. 

Join over thousands of organizations that use Creately to brainstorm, plan, analyze, and execute their projects successfully.

More Related Articles

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Please enter an answer in digits: 17 − seven =

Download our all-new eBook for tips on 50 powerful Business Diagrams for Strategic Planning.

Product Mindset's Newsletter

Product Frameworks: Problem-solving framework from McKinsey

"a problem well put is half solved" - john dewey.

McKinsey’s Problem-solving process

McKinsey’s benchmark is the problem-solving process as practiced by McKinsey. At the most abstract level, McKinsey develops solutions to clients’ strategic problems and, possibly, aids in the implementation of those solutions

Business Need

You can’t have problem solving without a problem or, more broadly, a need on the part of the client. In business, those needs come in several forms: competitive, organizational, financial, and operational.

Once your organization has identified the problem, it can begin to seek a solution, whether on its own or with the help of McKinsey (or any other outside agent). McKinsey’s fact-based, hypothesis-driven problemsolving process begins with framing the problem: defining the boundaries of the problem and breaking it down into its component elements to allow the problem-solving team to come up with an initial hypothesis as to the solution. The next step is designing the analysis, determining the analyses that must be done to prove the hypothesis, followed by gathering the data needed for the analyses. Finally comes interpreting the results of those analyses to see whether they prove or disprove the hypothesis and to develop a course of action for the client.

You may have found a solution, but it has no value until it has been communicated to and accepted by the client. For that to happen, you must structure your presentation so that it communicates your ideas clearly and concisely and generates buy-in for your solution for each individual audience to which you present.

The success of the problem-solving process requires good management at several levels. The problemsolving team must be properly assembled, motivated, and developed. The client must be kept informed, involved, and inspired by both the problem-solving process and the solution. The individual team members (that’s you) must strike a balance between life and career that allows them to meet the expectations of the client and the team while not “burning out.”

Implementation

Your organization may have accepted your solution, but it must still implement it. This requires the dedication of sufficient resources within the organization, the timely reaction of the organization to any stumbling blocks that may arise during implementation, the focus of the organization on completion of the tasks necessary for full implementation. In addition, the organization must institute a process of iteration that leads to continual improvement. That process requires reassessing implementation and rededicating the organization to make additional changes identified during reassessment.

At the nexus of solution and implementation comes leadership. Those at the helm of your organization must conceive a strategic vision for the organization. They must also provide inspiration for those in the organization who will do the hands-on work of implementation. Finally, they must make the right judgments regarding delegation of authority in overseeing implementation throughout the organization.

There is one other piece of the model: the tension between intuition and data. Problem solving doesn’t take place in a vacuum. Even McKinsey has only so many resources to throw at a problem and a limited time in which to solve it. While we are advocates for McKinsey-style fact-based problem solving, we recognize that it’s practically impossible to have all the relevant facts before reaching a decision. Therefore, most executives make business decisions based partly on facts and partly on intuition—gut instinct tempered by experience. We will discuss the pros and cons of each element later in the book. For now, we will simply say that we think a sound decision requires a balance of both.

8 Steps to Problem-Solving from McKinsey

Solve at the first meeting with a hypothesis

Intuition is as important as facts

Do your research but don’t reinvent the wheel

Tell the story behind the data

Start with the conclusion

Hit singles

Respect your time

#1 Solve at the first meeting with a hypothesis

The McKinsey problem-solving process begins with the use of structured frameworks to generate fact-based hypotheses followed by data gathering and analysis to prove or disprove the hypotheses.

Gut feeling at this stage is extremely important because we don’t have many facts yet. However, structure strengthens your thinking and ensures that your ideas will stand up. Typically, the problem-solving process would involve defining the boundaries of the problem and then breaking it down into its component elements.

The concept of MECE (pronounced “mee-see” and an acronym for Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive), is a basic tenet of the McKinsey thought process. Being MECE in the context of problem-solving means separating your problem into distinct, non-overlapping issues while making sure that no issues relevant to your problem have been overlooked. This allows to simplify the problem and plan the work because in most cases, a complex problem can be reduced to a group of smaller, simpler problems that can be solved individually.

The most common tool McKinsey people use to break problems apart is the  logic tree .

Having reduced the problem to its essential components, you are ready to embark on the next step which is framing it: forming a hypothesis as to its likely solution. By already knowing where your solution is, you eliminate a lot of paths that lead to dead ends.

Using an initial hypothesis to guide your research and analysis will increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of your decision-making because it provides you and your team with a problem-solving roadmap that will lead you to ask the right questions and perform the correct analysis to get to your answer. A good hypothesis will also save you time by pointing out potential blind alleys much more quickly and allowing you to get back to the main issues if you do go down the wrong path.

#2 Intuition is as important as facts

Since you should form your hypothesis at the start of the problem-solving process, you have to rely less on facts (you won’t have done most of your fact gathering yet) and more on instinct or intuition. Take what you know about the problem at hand, combine it with your gut feelings on the issue, and think about what the most likely answers are.

Executives make major strategic decisions based as much on gut instinct as on fact-based analysis. Intuition and data complement each other. You need at least some of each to have a solid basis for your decisions. The key to striking the balance is quality over quantity.

#3 Do your research but don’t reinvent the wheel

When you form an initial hypothesis, you are “solving the problem at the first meeting.” Unfortunately, although you may think you have the answer, you have to prove it through fact-based analysis.

Your next step is to figure out which analyses you have to perform and which questions you have to ask in order to prove or disprove your hypothesis.

When your time and resources are limited, you don’t have the luxury of being able to examine every single factor in detail. Instead, when planning your analyses, figure out which factors most affect the problem and focus on those. Drill down to the core of the problem instead of picking apart each and every piece. In most situations, achieving a scientific level of exactitude for your management decisions is counterproductive.

That’s why also as one of your first steps in designing your analysis, you should figure out what not to do.

As your next step, you should decide which analyses are quick wins — easy to complete and likely to make a major contribution to proving or refuting the initial hypothesis (80/20 rule).

When doing your research, you don’t want to get as much information as possible, you want to get the most important information as quickly as possible.

With a plan of action for what to research, make sure you don’t reinvent the wheel as you start gathering your data. Whatever problem you’re facing, chances are that someone somewhere has worked on something similar. So your next step here is to look through all possible internal documents and then look externally.

#4 Tell the story behind the data

Once you have your analysis finished, you need to interpret it because numbers or data don’t say anything. You have to figure out the story behind it and the message that you want to communicate.

At this stage, first comes the process of understanding the data: piecing together (in your own mind or within your team) the story the data is telling you and the steps you should take based on that story. The second comes assembling your findings into an externally directed end product: a key message that includes a course of action for your organization, ream, or client.

Your interpretation of the data leads to a story, that is, what you think the data means. You select those portions of the story that you believe your audience needs to know in order to understand your conclusion, along with the supporting evidence, and you put them together into your end product as in your presentation.

To succeed here you need to see through your client’s, executive’s or audience’s lenses and speak their language.

The key to successful presentations and getting buy-in (in order for your audience to accept your recommendations) is prewiring.

The reason behind this is because to get the buy-in you need to bridge the information and trust gaps between you and your audience. The information gap exists because you know more about your findings than your audience does. Depending on the relationship between you and your audience, the trust gap (if it exists) could take any of several forms. Your audience may think that you are too inexperienced to comment on their business, or they may mistrust you because you are an outsider, are overeducated, or not educated enough.

In its essence, prewiring means taking your audience through your findings before you give your presentation. This allows for people to trust you, ask questions you may not have thought about to avoid surprises, and then during the presentation say yes and support you among others who may be more skeptical.

Prewire everything. A good business presentation should contain no shocking revelations for the audience. Walk the relevant decision-makers in your organization through your findings before you gather them together for a dog and pony show. At a minimum, you should send out your recommendations via email to request comments from key decision-makers before the presentation if you can’t meet with those people face-to-face.

The earlier you can start the prewiring process, the better. By identifying and getting input from the relevant players early on, you allow them to put their own mark on your solution, which will make them more comfortable with it and give them a stake in the outcome.

#6 Start with the conclusion

When you begin your presentation in front of your desired audience, make sure you start with the conclusion.

Having your conclusions or recommendations upfront is sometimes known as inductive reasoning. Simply put, inductive reasoning takes the form, “We believe X because of reasons A, B, and C.” This contrasts with deductive reasoning, which can run along the lines of, “A is true, B is true, and C is true; therefore, we believe X.” Even in this simplest and most abstract example, it is obvious that inductive reasoning gets to the point a lot more quickly, takes less time to read, and packs a lot more punch. As an additional advantage, starting with your conclusions allows you to control how far you go into detail in your presentation.

You need to explain this clearly within just 30 seconds. Almost like an elevator pitch. If you can pass this “elevator test,” then you understand what you’re doing well enough to sell your solution.

A successful presentation bridges the gap between you — the presenter — and your audience. It lets them know what you know.

It also keeps it simple for them which is why it’s important to stick to a key rule if you are using a deck: one message per slide or chart. No more. The more complex a chart/slide becomes, the less effective it is at conveying information. The meaning should be immediately obvious to the reader, so use whatever tools you need to bring it out.

If you broke out your initial hypothesis into a MECE set of issues and sub-issues (and suitably modified them according to the results of your analysis), then you have a ready-made outline for your presentation that will support your conclusion.

Remember that you have two ears and only one mouth. It’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it. Overcommunication is better than under-communication which is why prewiring as mentioned above is so important.

Finally, if you are proposing a certain solution in which you will be involved in the execution, make sure you don’t overpromise because you’re bound to under-deliver. Instead, balance the demands for the solution with your capabilities and those of your team. If more work is necessary, you can always start a second project once the first is done.

#7 Hit singles

When you begin executing on the solution, aim to hit singles.

This is a metaphor from baseball. You can’t do everything, so don’t try. Just do what you’re supposed to do, and get it right. It’s impossible to do everything yourself all the time. If you do manage that feat once, you raise unrealistic expectations from those around you. Then, when you fail to meet those expectations, you’ll have difficulty regaining your credibility.

Getting on base consistently is much better than trying to hit a home run and striking out nine times out of ten.

Do few things well rather than a ton with mediocre execution or results. Stick to targeted focus rather than perfection and drilling into every little piece.

Quality over quantity. And when there’s a lot of work to be done, delegate around your limitations. Know them for what they are and respect them.

#8 Respect your time

Don’t forget that work is like a gas: it expands to fill the time available.

As in the previous point, share the load by delegating and also perform sanity checks on the way to allow you to take a step back and look at the big picture.

You will also have to get others to respect your time. The better you are at your job or the higher up you go in your organization, the more everyone wants a piece of you. There’s an old saying, “Stress is the feeling you get when your gut says, ‘No,’ and your mouth says, ‘Yes, I’d be glad to.’” You have to train your mouth to say, “No.”

Once you make a commitment — “I won’t work on weekends” or “I’ll cook dinner three nights a week” — stick to it, barring life-and-death emergencies. If you seem to be having life-and-death emergencies every week (and you’re not dealing with matters of real-life and death, as in a trauma ward), take a hard look at your priorities.

Share Product Mindset's Newsletter

You might also like :

Reference :

https://medium.com/@IliyanaStareva/8-step-framework-to-problem-solving-from-mckinsey-506823257b48

The McKinsey Way

The Mckinsey Mind

Thank you!!

Ready for more?

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 11 min read

McKinsey 7-S Framework

Making every part of your organization work in harmony.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

Do you know how well your organization is positioned to achieve its goals? Or what elements influence its ability to implement change successfully?

Models of organizational effectiveness go in and out of fashion, but the McKinsey 7-S framework has stood the test of time.

The model was developed in the late 1970s by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, former consultants at McKinsey & Company. They identified seven internal elements of an organization that need to align for it to be successful. [1]

In this article, we'll explore the seven elements in detail, and learn how it can be used to improve performance or manage change in organizations by ensuring that they all work in harmony.

Also, we provide a worked example and a downloadable template that you can use to apply the model.

When to Use the McKinsey 7-S Model

You can use the 7-S model in a wide variety of situations where it's useful to examine how the various parts of your organization work together.

For example, it can help you to improve the performance of your organization, or to determine the best way to implement a proposed strategy.

The framework can be used to examine the likely effects of future changes in the organization, or to align departments and processes during a merger or acquisition. You can also apply the McKinsey 7-S model to elements of a team or a project.

The Seven Elements of the McKinsey 7-S Framework

The model categorizes the seven elements as either "hard" or "soft":

The three "hard" elements include:

• Structures (such as organization charts and reporting lines).
• Systems (such as formal processes and IT systems.)

These elements are relatively easy to identify, and management can influence them directly.

The four "soft" elements, on the other hand, can be harder to describe, and are less tangible, and more influenced by your company culture. But they're just as important as the hard elements if the organization is going to be successful.

Figure 1, below, shows how the elements depend on each other, and how a change in one affects all the others.

Figure 1: The McKinsey 7-S Model

Figure reproduced with permission from McKinsey & Company, www.mckinsey.com. Copyright © 2016. All rights reserved.

Let's look at each of the elements individually:

• Strategy: this is your organization's plan for building and maintaining a competitive advantage over its competitors.
• Structure: this is how your company is organized (how departments and teams are structured, including who reports to whom).
• Systems: the daily activities and procedures that staff use to get the job done.
• Shared Values: these are the core values of the organization and reflect its general work ethic. They were called "superordinate goals" when the model was first developed.
• Style: the style of leadership adopted.
• Staff: the employees and their general capabilities.
• Skills: the actual skills and competencies of the organization's employees.

The placement of Shared Values in the center of the model emphasizes that they are central to the development of all the other critical elements.

The model states that the seven elements need to balance and reinforce each other for an organization to perform well.

Using the McKinsey 7-S Model

You can use the model to identify which elements of the 7-S' you need to realign to improve performance, or to maintain alignment and performance during other changes. These changes could include restructuring, new processes, an organizational merger, new systems, and a change of leadership.

To apply the McKinsey 7-S Model in your organization, follow these steps:

• Start with your shared values: are they consistent with your structure, strategy, and systems? If not, what needs to change?
• Then look at the hard elements – your strategy, structure and systems. How well does each one support the others? Identify where changes need to be made.
• Next, look at the soft elements – shared values, skills, (leadership) style, and staff. Do they support the desired hard elements? Do they support one another? If not, what needs to change?
• As you adjust and align the elements, you'll need to use an iterative (and often time-consuming) process of making adjustments, and then re-analyzing how that impacts other elements and their alignment. The end result of better performance will be worth it.

Figure 2 shows a template matrix that you can use to help with your analysis. You can click on the image to download it as a PDF worksheet.

We've also developed a checklist of the right questions to ask, which you can find in the next section. Supplement the questions in our checklist with your own questions, based on your organization's specific circumstances and your own knowledge and experience.

Figure 2: The McKinsey 7-S Matrix Template

You can use the 7-S model to help analyze your current situation (Point A in the worksheet), your proposed future situation (Point B in the worksheet), and to identify gaps and inconsistencies between them.

To examine where you are now (Point A), use the data that you've learned from your checklist questions to fill in the worksheet grid, putting a tick in any box where the two cross-referenced elements work together well. If the two elements aren't working well together, put a cross.

Point B is an agreed endpoint in the future (in six months or a year, for example). When you reach Point B, revisit the worksheet and fill it in again. If your changes have worked, you'll have a grid full of ticks. If not, you may need to make further adjustments.

The 7-S model is a good framework to help you ask the right questions, but it won't give you all the answers. For that, you'll need to bring together the right people with the right knowledge, skills and experience. Our article, Setting up a Cross-Functional Team , can help you to do this.

Checklist Questions for the McKinsey 7-S Framework

The following questions are a starting point for exploring your situation in terms of the 7-S framework. Use them to analyze your current situation (Point A) first, and then repeat the exercise for your proposed situation (Point B).

• What is our strategy?
• How do we intend to achieve our objectives?
• How do we deal with competitive pressure?
• How are changes in customer demands dealt with?
• How is strategy adjusted for environmental issues?
• How is the company/team divided?
• What is the hierarchy?
• How do the various departments coordinate activities?
• How do the team members organize and align themselves?
• Is decision-making centralized or decentralized? Is this as it should be, given what we're doing?
• Where are the lines of communication? Explicit or implicit?
• What are the main systems that run the organization? Consider financial and HR systems, as well as communications and document storage.
• Where are the controls and how are they monitored and evaluated?
• What internal rules and processes does the team use to keep on track?

Shared Values:

• What are your organization's core values?
• What is its corporate/team culture like?
• How strong are the values?
• What are the fundamental values that the company/team was built on?
• How participative is the management/leadership style?
• How effective is that leadership?
• Do employees/team members tend to be competitive or cooperative?
• Are there real teams functioning within the organization or are they just nominal groups?
• What positions or specializations are represented within the team?
• What positions need to be filled?
• Are there gaps in required competencies?
• What are the strongest skills represented within the company/team?
• Are there any skills gaps?
• What is the company/team known for doing well?
• Do the current employees/team members have the ability to do the job?
• How are skills monitored and assessed?

Example: The McKinsey 7-S Framework in Action

Whitehawk Electronics is a startup with five staff. As a new venture, it is still based firmly on the vision and values of its founder, Alix, and its elements all align. It sells into one market, and uses off-the-shelf IT and accounting systems.

As time goes on, the business grows, employing 30 staff, and diversifying into different markets. New customer requirements demand new skills in marketing, technology, product development, and financial management.

Alix carries out a 7-S analysis. She finds that Whitehawk's developing sales strategy no longer aligns with its small-business skill set.

The rapid influx of new staff members, along with changes in technology, means that some staff don't have the necessary systems skills. Worse still, they're unclear on the organization's values and sense of purpose.

Alix uses the analysis to introduce onboarding and learning programs, bringing all Whitehawk's key elements back into alignment.

For other, similar approaches, see our articles on the Burke-Litwin Change Model , and the Congruence Model . You may also find our articles on the Change Curve , Impact Analysis and Lewin's Change Management Model useful.

You can apply the McKinsey 7-S framework to almost any organizational or team effectiveness issue. The 7-S' refer to:

• Shared values.

If something within your organization or team isn't working, chances are there is inconsistency between one or more of these seven elements.

Once you reveal these inconsistencies, you can work to align these elements to make sure they are all contributing to your organization's shared goals and values.

The process of analyzing where you are right now, in terms of these elements, is worthwhile in itself. But for it to be truly effective, you'll also need to determine the desired future state for each factor. This will help you make changes and improve performance so that all seven factors are aligned across your organization.

Download Worksheet

[1] Waterman, R. H. and Peters, T. (1982). ' In Search of Excellence ,' New York: Harper and Row.

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

Mckinsey and co: the war for talent.

Overview of 'The War for Talent' Mckinsey’s Influential Article on Talent Management

Assessing the Need for Change

Drivers of Organizational Change and Techniques to Address Them

Add comment

Comments (0)

Be the first to comment!

Gain essential management and leadership skills

Busy schedule? No problem. Learn anytime, anywhere. 

Subscribe to unlimited access to meticulously researched, evidence-based resources.

Join today and take advantage of our 30% offer, available until May 31st .

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Latest Updates

Setting Goals for Members of Your Team

Managing Up

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Problem Solving

How to solve problems using the Cause and Effect Analysis technique

Giving Feedback

Learn how to evaluate people’s performance, and conduct an effective feedback session

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

An introduction to business continuity management.

An Introduction to Business Continuity Management and Why it is So Important

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Decision Making

Member Podcast

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Share Podcast

A Better Framework for Solving Tough Problems

Start with trust and end with speed.

• Apple Podcasts

When it comes to solving complicated problems, the default for many organizational leaders is to take their time to work through the issues at hand. Unfortunately, that often leads to patchwork solutions or problems not truly getting resolved.

But Anne Morriss offers a different framework. In this episode, she outlines a five-step process for solving any problem and explains why starting with trust and ending with speed is so important for effective change leadership. As she says, “Let’s get into dialogue with the people who are also impacted by the problem before we start running down the path of solving it.”

Morriss is an entrepreneur and leadership coach. She’s also the coauthor of the book, Move Fast and Fix Things: The Trusted Leader’s Guide to Solving Hard Problems .

Key episode topics include: strategy, decision making and problem solving, strategy execution, managing people, collaboration and teams, trustworthiness, organizational culture, change leadership, problem solving, leadership.

HBR On Strategy curates the best case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, to help you unlock new ways of doing business. New episodes every week.

• Listen to the full HBR IdeaCast episode: How to Solve Tough Problems Better and Faster (2023)
• Find more episodes of HBR IdeaCast
• Discover 100 years of Harvard Business Review articles, case studies, podcasts, and more at HBR.org .

HANNAH BATES: Welcome to HBR On Strategy , case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, hand-selected to help you unlock new ways of doing business.

When it comes to solving complicated problems, many leaders only focus on the most apparent issues. Unfortunately that often leads to patchwork or partial solutions. But Anne Morriss offers a different framework that aims to truly tackle big problems by first leaning into trust and then focusing on speed.

Morriss is an entrepreneur and leadership coach. She’s also the co-author of the book, Move Fast and Fix Things: The Trusted Leader’s Guide to Solving Hard Problems . In this episode, she outlines a five-step process for solving any problem. Some, she says, can be solved in a week, while others take much longer. She also explains why starting with trust and ending with speed is so important for effective change leadership.

This episode originally aired on HBR IdeaCast in October 2023. Here it is.

CURT NICKISCH: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I’m Curt Nickisch.

Problems can be intimidating. Sure, some problems are fun to dig into. You roll up your sleeves, you just take care of them; but others, well, they’re complicated. Sometimes it’s hard to wrap your brain around a problem, much less fix it.

And that’s especially true for leaders in organizations where problems are often layered and complex. They sometimes demand technical, financial, or interpersonal knowledge to fix. And whether it’s avoidance on the leaders’ part or just the perception that a problem is systemic or even intractable, problems find a way to endure, to keep going, to keep being a problem that everyone tries to work around or just puts up with.

But today’s guest says that just compounds it and makes the problem harder to fix. Instead, she says, speed and momentum are key to overcoming a problem.

Anne Morriss is an entrepreneur, leadership coach and founder of the Leadership Consortium and with Harvard Business School Professor Francis Frei, she wrote the new book, Move Fast and Fix Things: The Trusted Leaders Guide to Solving Hard Problems . Anne, welcome back to the show.

ANNE MORRISS: Curt, thank you so much for having me.

CURT NICKISCH: So, to generate momentum at an organization, you say that you really need speed and trust. We’ll get into those essential ingredients some more, but why are those two essential?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. Well, the essential pattern that we observed was that the most effective change leaders out there were building trust and speed, and it didn’t seem to be a well-known observation. We all know the phrase, “Move fast and break things,” but the people who were really getting it right were moving fast and fixing things, and that was really our jumping off point. So when we dug into the pattern, what we observed was they were building trust first and then speed. This foundation of trust was what allowed them to fix more things and break fewer.

CURT NICKISCH: Trust sounds like a slow thing, right? If you talk about building trust, that is something that takes interactions, it takes communication, it takes experiences. Does that run counter to the speed idea?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. Well, this issue of trust is something we’ve been looking at for over a decade. One of the headlines in our research is it’s actually something we’re building and rebuilding and breaking all the time. And so instead of being this precious, almost farbege egg, it’s this thing that is constantly in motion and this thing that we can really impact when we’re deliberate about our choices and have some self-awareness around where it’s breaking down and how it’s breaking down.

CURT NICKISCH: You said break trust in there, which is intriguing, right? That you may have to break trust to build trust. Can you explain that a little?

ANNE MORRISS:  Yeah, well, I’ll clarify. It’s not that you have to break it in order to build it. It’s just that we all do it some of the time. Most of us are trusted most of the time. Most of your listeners I imagine are trusted most of the time, but all of us have a pattern where we break trust or where we don’t build as much as could be possible.

CURT NICKISCH: I want to talk about speed, this other essential ingredient that’s so intriguing, right? Because you think about solving hard problems as something that just takes a lot of time and thinking and coordination and planning and designing. Explain what you mean by it? And also, just  how we maybe approach problems wrong by taking them on too slowly?

ANNE MORRISS: Well, Curt, no one has ever said to us, “I wish I had taken longer and done less.” We hear the opposite all the time, by the way. So what we really set out to do was to create a playbook that anyone can use to take less time to do more of the things that are going to make your teams and organizations stronger.

And the way we set up the book is okay, it’s really a five step process. Speed is the last step. It’s the payoff for the hard work you’re going to do to figure out your problem, build or rebuild trust, expand the team in thoughtful and strategic ways, and then tell a real and compelling story about the change you’re leading.

Only then do you get to go fast, but that’s an essential part of the process, and we find that either people under emphasize it or speed has gotten a bad name in this world of moving fast and breaking things. And part of our mission for sure was to rehabilitate speed’s reputation because it is an essential part of the change leader’s equation. It can be the difference between good intentions and getting anything done at all.

CURT NICKISCH: You know, the fact that nobody ever tells you, “I wish we had done less and taken more time.” I think we all feel that, right? Sometimes we do something and then realize, “Oh, that wasn’t that hard and why did it take me so long to do it? And I wish I’d done this a long time ago.” Is it ever possible to solve a problem too quickly?

ANNE MORRISS: Absolutely. And we see that all the time too. What we push people to do in those scenarios is really take a look at the underlying issue because in most cases, the solution is not to take your foot off the accelerator per se and slow down. The solution is to get into the underlying problem. So if it’s burnout or a strategic disconnect between what you’re building and the marketplace you’re serving, what we find is the anxiety that people attach to speed or the frustration people attach to speed is often misplaced.

CURT NICKISCH: What is a good timeline to think about solving a problem then? Because if we by default take too long or else jump ahead and we don’t fix it right, what’s a good target time to have in your mind for how long solving a problem should take?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. Well, we’re playful in the book and talking about the idea that many problems can be solved in a week. We set the book up five chapters. They’re titled Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and we’re definitely having fun with that. And yet, if you count the hours in a week, there are a lot of them. Many of our problems, if you were to spend a focused 40 hours of effort on a problem, you’re going to get pretty far.

But our main message is, listen, of course it’s going to depend on the nature of the problem, and you’re going to take weeks and maybe even some cases months to get to the other side. What we don’t want you to do is take years, which tends to be our default timeline for solving hard problems.

CURT NICKISCH: So you say to start with identifying the problem that’s holding you back, seems kind of obvious. But where do companies go right and wrong with this first step of just identifying the problem that’s holding you back?

ANNE MORRISS: And our goal is that all of these are going to feel obvious in retrospect. The problem is we skip over a lot of these steps and this is why we wanted to underline them. So this one is really rooted in our observation and I think the pattern of our species that we tend to be overconfident in the quality of our thoughts, particularly when it comes to diagnosing problems.

And so we want to invite you to start in a very humble and curious place, which tends not to be our default mode when we’re showing up for work. We convince ourselves that we’re being paid for our judgment. That’s exactly what gets reinforced everywhere. And so we tend to counterintuitively, given what we just talked about, we tend to move too quickly through the diagnostic phase.

CURT NICKISCH: “I know what to do, that’s why you hired me.”

ANNE MORRISS: Exactly. “I know what to do. That’s why you hired me. I’ve seen this before. I have a plan. Follow me.” We get rewarded for the expression of confidence and clarity. And so what we’re inviting people to do here is actually pause and really lean into what are the root causes of the problem you’re seeing? What are some alternative explanations? Let’s get into dialogue with the people who are also impacted by the problem before we start running down the path of solving it.

CURT NICKISCH: So what do you recommend for this step, for getting to the root of the problem? What are questions you should ask? What’s the right thought process? What do you do on Monday of the week?

ANNE MORRISS: In our experience of doing this work, people tend to undervalue the power of conversation, particularly with other people in the organization. So we will often advocate putting together a team of problem solvers, make it a temporary team, really pull in people who have a particular perspective on the problem and create the space, make it as psychologically safe as you can for people to really, as Chris Argyris so beautifully articulated, discuss the undiscussable.

And so the conditions for that are going to look different in every organization depending on the problem, but if you can get a space where smart people who have direct experience of a problem are in a room and talking honestly with each other, you can make an extraordinary amount of progress, certainly in a day.

CURT NICKISCH: Yeah, that gets back to the trust piece.

ANNE MORRISS: Definitely.

CURT NICKISCH: How do you like to start that meeting, or how do you like to talk about it? I’m just curious what somebody on that team might hear in that meeting, just to get the sense that it’s psychologically safe, you can discuss the undiscussable and you’re also focusing on the identification part. What’s key to communicate there?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. Well, we sometimes encourage people to do a little bit of data gathering before those conversations. So the power of a quick anonymous survey around whatever problem you’re solving, but also be really thoughtful about the questions you’re going to ask in the moment. So a little bit of preparation can go a long way and a little bit of thoughtfulness about the power dynamic. So who’s going to walk in there with license to speak and who’s going to hold back? So being thoughtful about the agenda, about the questions you’re asking about the room, about the facilitation, and then courage is a very infectious emotion.

So if you can early on create the conditions for people to show up bravely in that conversation, then the chance that you’re going to get good information and that you’re going to walk out of that room with new insight in the problem that you didn’t have when you walked in is extraordinarily high.

CURT NICKISCH: Now, in those discussions, you may have people who have different perspectives on what the problem really is. They also bear different costs of addressing the problem or solving it. You talked about the power dynamic, but there’s also an unfairness dynamic of who’s going to actually have to do the work to take care of it, and I wonder how you create a culture in that meeting where it’s the most productive?

ANNE MORRISS: For sure, the burden of work is not going to be equitably distributed around the room. But I would say, Curt, the dynamic that we see most often is that people are deeply relieved that hard problems are being addressed. So it really can create, and more often than not in our experience, it does create this beautiful flywheel of action, creativity, optimism. Often when problems haven’t been addressed, there is a fair amount of anxiety in the organization, frustration, stagnation. And so credible movement towards action and progress is often the best antidote. So even if the plan isn’t super clear yet, if it’s credible, given who’s in the room and their decision rights and mandate, if there’s real momentum coming out of that to make progress, then that tends to be deeply energizing to people.

CURT NICKISCH: I wonder if there’s an organization that you’ve worked with that you could talk about how this rolled out and how this took shape?

ANNE MORRISS: When we started working with Uber, that was wrestling with some very public issues of culture and trust with a range of stakeholders internally, the organization, also external, that work really started with a campaign of listening and really trying to understand where trust was breaking down from the perspective of these stakeholders?

So whether it was female employees or regulators or riders who had safety concerns getting into the car with a stranger. This work, it starts with an honest internal dialogue, but often the problem has threads that go external. And so bringing that same commitment to curiosity and humility and dialogue to anyone who’s impacted by the problem is the fastest way to surface what’s really going on.

CURT NICKISCH: There’s a step in this process that you lay out and that’s communicating powerfully as a leader. So we’ve heard about listening and trust building, but now you’re talking about powerful communication. How do you do this and why is it maybe this step in the process rather than the first thing you do or the last thing you do?

ANNE MORRISS: So in our process, again, it’s the days of the week. On Monday you figured out the problem. Tuesday you really got into the sandbox in figuring out what a good enough plan is for building trust. Wednesday, step three, you made it better. You created an even better plan, bringing in new perspectives. Thursday, this fourth step is the day we’re saying you got to go get buy-in. You got to bring other people along. And again, this is a step where we see people often underinvest in the power and payoff of really executing it well.

CURT NICKISCH: How does that go wrong?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah, people don’t know the why. Human behavior and the change in human behavior really depends on a strong why. It’s not just a selfish, “What’s in it for me?” Although that’s helpful, but where are we going? I may be invested in a status quo and I need to understand, okay, if you’re going to ask me to change, if you’re going to invite me into this uncomfortable place of doing things differently, why am I here? Help me understand it and articulate the way forward and language that not only I can understand, but also that’s going to be motivating to me.

CURT NICKISCH: And who on my team was part of this process and all that kind of stuff?

ANNE MORRISS: Oh, yeah. I may have some really important questions that may be in the way of my buy-in and commitment to this plan. So certainly creating a space where those questions can be addressed is essential. But what we found is that there is an architecture of a great change story, and it starts with honoring the past, honoring the starting place. Sometimes we’re so excited about the change and animated about the change that what has happened before or what is even happening in the present tense is low on our list of priorities.

Or we want to label it bad, because that’s the way we’ve thought about the change, but really pausing and honoring what came before you and all the reasonable decisions that led up to it, I think can be really helpful to getting people emotionally where you want them to be willing to be guided by you. Going back to Uber, when Dara Khosrowshahi came in.

CURT NICKISCH: This is the new CEO.

ANNE MORRISS: The new CEO.

CURT NICKISCH: Replaced Travis Kalanick, the founder and first CEO, yeah.

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah, and had his first all-hands meeting. One of his key messages, and this is a quote, was that he was going to retain the edge that had made Uber, “A force of nature.” And in that meeting, the crowd went wild because this is also a company that had been beaten up publicly for months and months and months, and it was a really powerful choice. And his predecessor, Travis was in the room, and he also honored Travis’ incredible work and investment in bringing the company to the place where it was.

And I would use words like grace to also describe those choices, but there’s also an incredible strategic value to naming the starting place for everybody in the room because in most cases, most people in that room played a role in getting to that starting place, and you’re acknowledging that.

CURT NICKISCH: You can call it grace. Somebody else might call it diplomatic or strategic. But yeah, I guess like it or not, it’s helpful to call out and honor the complexity of the way things have been done and also the change that’s happening.

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah, and the value. Sometimes honoring the past is also owning what didn’t work or what wasn’t working for stakeholders or segments of the employee team, and we see that around culture change. Sometimes you’ve got to acknowledge that it was not an equitable environment, but whatever the worker, everyone in that room is bringing that pass with them. So again, making it discussable and using it as the jumping off place is where we advise people to start.

Then you’ve earned the right to talk about the change mandate, which we suggest using clear and compelling language about the why. “This is what happened, this is where we are, this is the good and the bad of it, and here’s the case for change.”

And then the last part, which is to describe a rigorous and optimistic way forward. It’s a simple past, present, future arc, which will be familiar to human beings. We love stories as human beings. It’s among the most powerful currency we have to make sense of the world.

CURT NICKISCH: Yeah. Chronological is a pretty powerful order.

ANNE MORRISS: Right. But again, the change leaders we see really get it right, are investing an incredible amount of time into the storytelling part of their job. Ursula Burns, the Head of Xerox is famous for the months and years she spent on the road just telling the story of Xerox’s change, its pivot into services to everyone who would listen, and that was a huge part of her success.

CURT NICKISCH: So Friday or your fifth step, you end with empowering teams and removing roadblocks. That seems obvious, but it’s critical. Can you dig into that a little bit?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. Friday is the fun day. Friday’s the release of energy into the system. Again, you’ve now earned the right to go fast. You have a plan, you’re pretty confident it’s going to work. You’ve told the story of change the organization, and now you get to sprint. So this is about really executing with urgency, and it’s about a lot of the tactics of speed is where we focus in the book. So the tactics of empowerment, making tough strategic trade-offs so that your priorities are clear and clearly communicated, creating mechanisms to fast-track progress. At Etsy, CEO Josh Silverman, he labeled these projects ambulances. It’s an unfortunate metaphor, but it’s super memorable. These are the products that get to speed out in front of the other ones because the stakes are high and the clock is sticking.

CURT NICKISCH: You pull over and let it go by.

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah, exactly. And so we have to agree as an organization on how to do something like that. And so we see lots of great examples both in young organizations and big complex biotech companies with lots of regulatory guardrails have still found ways to do this gracefully.

And I think we end with this idea of conflict debt, which is a term we really love. Leanne Davey, who’s a team scholar and researcher, and anyone in a tech company will recognize the idea of tech debt, which is this weight the organization drags around until they resolve it. Conflict debt is a beautiful metaphor because it is this weight that we drag around and slows us down until we decide to clean it up and fix it. The organizations that are really getting speed right have figured out either formally or informally, how to create an environment where conflict and disagreements can be gracefully resolved.

CURT NICKISCH: Well, let’s talk about this speed more, right? Because I think this is one of those places that maybe people go wrong or take too long, and then you lose the awareness of the problem, you lose that urgency. And then that also just makes it less effective, right? It’s not just about getting the problem solved as quickly as possible. It’s also just speed in some ways helps solve the problem.

ANNE MORRISS: Oh, yeah. It really is the difference between imagining the change you want to lead and really being able to bring it to life. Speed is the thing that unlocks your ability to lead change. It needs a foundation, and that’s what Monday through Thursday is all about, steps one through four, but the finish line is executing with urgency, and it’s that urgency that releases the system’s energy, that communicates your priorities, that creates the conditions for your team to make progress.

CURT NICKISCH: Moving fast is something that entrepreneurs and tech companies certainly understand, but there’s also this awareness that with big companies, the bigger the organization, the harder it is to turn the aircraft carrier around, right? Is speed relative when you get at those levels, or do you think this is something that any company should be able to apply equally?

ANNE MORRISS: We think this applies to any company. The culture really lives at the level of team. So we believe you can make a tremendous amount of progress even within your circle of control as a team leader. I want to bring some humility to this and careful of words like universal, but we do think there’s some universal truths here around the value of speed, and then some of the byproducts like keeping fantastic people. Your best people want to solve problems, they want to execute, they want to make progress and speed, and the ability to do that is going to be a variable in their own equation of whether they stay or they go somewhere else where they can have an impact.

CURT NICKISCH: Right. They want to accomplish something before they go or before they retire or finish something out. And if you’re able to just bring more things on the horizon and have it not feel like it’s going to be another two years to do something meaningful.

ANNE MORRISS: People – I mean, they want to make stuff happen and they want to be around the energy and the vitality of making things happen, which again, is also a super infectious phenomenon. One of the most important jobs of a leader, we believe, is to set the metabolic pace of their teams and organizations. And so what we really dig into on Friday is, well, what does that look like to speed something up? What are the tactics of that?

CURT NICKISCH: I wonder if that universal truth, that a body in motion stays in motion applies to organizations, right? If an organization in motion stays in motion, there is something to that.

ANNE MORRISS: Absolutely.

CURT NICKISCH: Do you have a favorite client story to share, just where you saw speed just become a bit of a flywheel or just a positive reinforcement loop for more positive change at the organization?

ANNE MORRISS: Yeah. We work with a fair number of organizations that are on fire. We do a fair amount of firefighting, but we also less dramatically do a lot of fire prevention. So we’re brought into organizations that are working well and want to get better, looking out on the horizon. That work is super gratifying, and there is always a component of, well, how do we speed this up?

What I love about that work is there’s often already a high foundation of trust, and so it’s, well, how do we maintain that foundation but move this flywheel, as you said, even faster? And it’s really energizing because often there’s a lot of pent-up energy that… There’s a lot of loyalty to the organization, but often it’s also frustration and pent-up energy. And so when that gets released, when good people get the opportunity to sprint for the first time in a little while, it’s incredibly energizing, not just for us, but for the whole organization.

CURT NICKISCH: Anne, this is great. I think finding a way to solve problems better but also faster is going to be really helpful. So thanks for coming on the show to talk about it.

ANNE MORRISS:  Oh, Curt, it was such a pleasure. This is my favorite conversation. I’m delighted to have it anytime.

HANNAH BATES: That was entrepreneur, leadership coach, and author Anne Morriss – in conversation with Curt Nickisch on HBR IdeaCast.

We’ll be back next Wednesday with another hand-picked conversation about business strategy from Harvard Business Review. If you found this episode helpful, share it with your friends and colleagues, and follow our show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. While you’re there, be sure to leave us a review.

When you’re ready for more podcasts, articles, case studies, books, and videos with the world’s top business and management experts, you’ll find it all at HBR.org.

This episode was produced by Mary Dooe, Anne Saini, and me, Hannah Bates. Ian Fox is our editor. Special thanks to Rob Eckhardt, Maureen Hoch, Erica Truxler, Ramsey Khabbaz, Nicole Smith, Anne Bartholomew, and you – our listener. See you next week.

• Subscribe On:

Latest in this series

This article is about strategy.

• Decision making and problem solving
• Strategy execution
• Leadership and managing people
• Collaboration and teams
• Trustworthiness
• Organizational culture

Partner Center

Roger Swannell

Problem solving frameworks

Admin on 26/06/2021

Problem Framing is a design thinking method used to understand, define and prioritize complex business problems. No matter what strategy you plan on building, or what your outcomes are, it will help you and your team make better decisions, faster.

Use the problem framing canvas to explore a problem space and formulate a robust problem statement to ensure you’re solving the right problem.

8-Step Framework to Problem-Solving from McKinsey

A Framework to Solve any Problem

A Leader’s Seven Step Framework for Problem-Solving

A Product Development Framework With a Focus on Problem Solving

A simple problem formulation framework to create the right solution to the right problem

What Is Problem Solving?

• Category: Notes

It sits beside the crossroads of humanity and technology, and past and future, and watches it all go by.

No thanks, I’m not interested

Geopolitical resilience: The new board imperative

Today’s world is more connected economically than ever before yet is experiencing significant geopolitical fragmentation. In this context, geopolitical risks are among the top three issues that CEOs believe they must act on in 2023. 1 Carolyn Dewar, Scott Keller, Vikram Malhotra, and Kurt Strovink, “ Actions the best CEOs are taking in 2023 ,” McKinsey, March 15, 2023

For management, the imperative of navigating geopolitical risks is obvious, but for a board, the road map is unclear. What is a board’s role, relative to management, in building and stewarding a resilient and thriving enterprise under geopolitical storm clouds?

In this article, we focus on this question and suggest approaches and frameworks for directors’ consideration. In doing so, we draw on our discussions with the boards of leading global companies and our experience as geopolitical risk practitioners and board members.

A world connected and fragmenting

The global order today is experiencing cross-cutting forces. On the one hand, according to McKinsey Global Institute research on global flows, the ties that bind are strong. 2 “ Global flows: The ties that bind in an interconnected world ,” McKinsey Global Institute, November 15, 2022. Exports, as a percentage of GDP, have doubled since 1990; trade in intangibles, data, and intellectual property has grown twice as fast as goods; and cross-border talent flows are at an all-time high. At the same time, we are experiencing significant geopolitical fragmentation, or as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has put it: “The world is facing a Zeitenwende : an epochal tectonic shift. New powers have emerged or reemerged. In this new multipolar world, different countries and models of government are competing for power and influence. 3 Olaf Scholz, “The Global Zeitenwende: How to Avoid a New Cold War in a Multipolar Era,” Foreign Affairs (January/February 2023).

Adapting from the distinguished Harvard political scientist Dr. Joseph Nye’s analysis on the future of power, 4 Joseph S. Nye Jr., The Future of Power , New York, NY: Public Affairs, 2011. there are three levels to the global order from a geopolitical lens: a unipolar level on the military dimension with the United States dominant; a tripolar world on the economic dimension with China, the European Union, and the United States in lead positions; and a multipolar political dimension with “middle powers,” such as India and Saudi Arabia, pursuing varied forms of nonalignment and exercising greater global clout.

Amid these tectonic shifts are two major fault lines: in Europe, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and in the Indo-Pacific, strategic competition between China and the United States. These events have prompted the key question looming over many boardrooms today: Having scaled back in or exited the world’s 11th-largest economy (Russia) last year, how should companies guide operations in and around the world’s second-largest economy (China)? Viewing the options on a spectrum, should they, as European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen put it, further derisk (and if so, how), or should they “decouple?” 5 Ursula von der Leyen, speech on EU-China relations to the Mercator Institute for China Studies and the European Policy Centre, March 30, 2023.

Most boards feel unprepared to grapple with this core question. And it is by no means the only question. How should one approach multidecade investment planning in a rapidly evolving geopolitical context? How do companies navigate the growing regulatory thicket of export controls, sanctions, and data localization requirements that are often at cross-purposes and increasingly constrain a seamless global footprint?

In surveys of global boards conducted by our colleagues, most directors say they are very prepared to deal with challenges close to home but feel unprepared for larger-scale forces such as major crises, macroeconomic shocks, and climate change. Most say they find these forces too ambiguous to understand fully.

Boards must quickly adapt to this emerging global order. To do so, they need greater granularity in how they understand , monitor , and mitigate the geopolitical risks facing their global footprint. We examine these elements below and outline a set of guiding questions for boards to utilize.

Understand: Acquire expertise and competency

Boards must, first and foremost, upgrade their capabilities to conduct more nuanced discussions and decisions around managing geopolitical risk.

Doing so starts with the who . Does your board have the core competency and clear governance to engage on geopolitical risk? Ensuring so requires reassessing board composition criteria, committee setup, and overall board scope. Steps to consider include the following:

• A diverse board with the relevant skills and experience to provide forward-looking strategic direction and actively engage in problem solving. Board composition strategies and selection criteria, often defined by nomination committees, could include explicit requirements around ensuring a subset of members have experience in geopolitics (whether from media, regulatory affairs, or government) and exposure to key markets of elevated geopolitical sensitivity. These directors could also play a role in conducting business diplomacy and engaging key stakeholders across markets in a manner that adds to and advances management’s core strategic objectives from a level of risk oversight that only directors can convey.
• A set of board committees with domain awareness and expertise. The board could shape the remit of key committees to support the board overall in dealing with geopolitical risk across different dimensions. For example, risk committees could ensure that issues of public policy and regulatory affairs are a core agenda item, or they could consider establishing a stand-alone committee with members of relevant expertise to focus on related questions. Similarly, compensation committees could tie a portion of CEO and leadership compensation to having managed down the organization’s geopolitical risk through defined criteria, thus enabling them to earn a geopolitical resilience premium. Providing the right incentive structure to upgrade capabilities can thus help ensure the right people are at multiple levels of the organization.
• A clear delineation of roles and responsibilities between the board and management team. Boards and management teams ought to have a clear delineation of responsibilities in terms of leading on managing geopolitical risk. Typically, the board would fundamentally focus on providing a clear direction and strategy, stress-testing scenarios, and providing guidance, instead of, for example, defining specific controls needed.

With the who in place, the next question is what information should be provided to the board to educate members continually on key topics.

Creating a baseline of facts related to the context of the organization—even on a board with pockets of core competency—is critically important in a global organization, where board members may span different markets and consume different media sources. While a diversity of views should be welcomed and retained, boards should also sustain aligned and continued education by having a specialist geopolitical risk unit provide regular updates about key geopolitical developments and implications for the organization.

In addition, boards should consider hearing directly from external sources of insight, by either standing up an advisory council of individuals with related expertise or bringing in two to three external speakers over the year. Whether council or speakers, ensuring a diversity of perspectives is critical. Exposure to a multipolarity of perspectives is necessary for navigating a multipolar world and establishes credibility with colleagues across a global firm.

In terms of the when , simply put, geopolitical risks do not heed a quarterly calendar. Rather, boards must up their clock speed and their ability to make decisions to at least monthly reviews of key developments with ad hoc meetings in between as needed.

An underappreciated dimension of upgrading a board’s capabilities is the where . Boards should consider holding their meetings in a diverse range of markets, including key emerging markets, with a structured agenda for external engagements and site visits. This not only deepens a board’s understanding but also signals externally and internally the organization’s commitment to a market. Of course, holding a board meeting in a more geopolitically sensitive market also requires careful consideration of factors such as timing, optics, security, confidentiality of discussions, and internal and external scrutiny.

Finally, the how . We often get the question of how management should stand up a geopolitical risk unit to support the board and management. There is no one size that fits all. Some companies have stood up units within their government and regulatory affairs teams (for example, key global tech players for whom political risk is often interwoven with regulation); other companies within the risk team (notably, global financial institutions expanding out from a focus on credit and market risk); and still others within their security teams (for instance, global firms with supply chain and infrastructure exposure). In fact, geopolitical risk cuts across all these teams and others, such as communications, finance, and tech. More important than where the unit is housed is for it to have the following characteristics:

• The unit should be empowered to coordinate inputs across teams to deliver integrated analysis for and aligned action on behalf of the board and executive team.
• To coordinate inputs and action, it should establish a working group with representation across internal teams. This working group should convene regularly.
• The members of the unit should be strategic thinkers who can see issues from different vantage points, including of their own colleagues in geopolitically sensitive markets. They should be drawn from across the organization.
• The unit should have budgetary support to engage vendors and speakers and to externally source geopolitical risk scenarios and sources of insight.
• A board member should be paired with the unit to provide strategic guidance on content and framing and to ensure briefings and products will resonate with fellow board colleagues.

Key questions to ask management include the following:

• What are the most significant geopolitical risks facing our organization?
• What are the actual implications of these risks for our organization?
• Do we have the core competency to understand and mitigate these risks?

Monitor: Use relevant frameworks

Upgrading the board’s understanding is foundational. Understanding then needs to be channeled into ongoing monitoring through frameworks that focus the board’s mind.

One such framework is a geopolitical risk dashboard that reviews markets tiered by geopolitical risk exposure—a dashboard to be developed and regularly refreshed by the geopolitical risk unit. Higher-tier markets are ones where organizations have to navigate sharply competing interstate interests, such as escalating US–China strategic competition, that could have an impact on the organization and where the board’s continued focus and attention is important. A lower-tier market would, for example, entail localized risks, such as political instability; internal teams would manage such issues as they arise, with the board delivering visibility and guidance when needed.

Each month, the board can be presented with the dashboard reflecting key developments in the markets under each tier (flowing from the updates described above), their impact, and importantly, the controls being developed—including by whom and over what time frame—to manage the attendant risks. For example, in a higher-tier market where a new set of sanctions and export control restrictions have been imposed, the dashboard could explain the restrictions; the impact they have on the company directly or on its clients, suppliers, or partners; and how internal compliance processes will be adapted in response.

While some of the board’s deliberations on a particular market—such as whether to exit a sensitive market—may be actionable, boards also ought to leave scope for review and discussion. For example, the geopolitical risk unit could shine a spotlight into regions where the organization operates that are infrequently reviewed closely. This would ensure the board maintains a sharp global antenna and can provide management with the benefit of a broader view of controls.

In contrast to the geopolitical risk dashboard framework that is tilted toward immediate risks, another framework that boards can leverage to lift their gaze is what we call a “ black swans, gray rhinos, and silver linings ” framework to assess and categorize key geopolitical scenarios. Black swans are unknown risks of high impact, while gray rhinos are foreseeable risks of high impact. Silver linings, on the other hand, represent areas of opportunity amid geopolitical flux.

Boards should stress-test such scenarios upon their development by the management team, with support from the geopolitical risk unit. During this effort, boards can provide guidance about key watchpoints and contingency plans for a core subset of scenarios that have the greatest impact on the organization. Key questions to ask include the following:

• What are the key markets that merit ongoing monitoring and discussion at the board level in terms of geopolitical risk exposure?
• Is management’s geopolitical risk dashboard fit for purpose?
• Do we have a robust early-warning system and sources of insight to anticipate the risks in our key markets before impact?
• Are we paying sufficient attention to the aggregate long-tail geopolitical risk of our presence in a series of smaller volatile markets?

Mitigate: Guide the development and application of risk controls

To manage geopolitical risk effectively, boards should also pressure-test management on its set of controls. Some of the most thoughtful institutions with whom we have engaged have put in place controls that include:

• ensuring their management teams are building resilience in their supply chain
• reviewing insurance policies
• recalibrating their corporate structure and tech stacks in sensitive jurisdictions
• investing in their public and regulatory affairs capabilities
• thinking through how best to engage with and retain their colleagues’ commitment to a common enterprise amid the centrifugal forces of nationalism.

One key control is for the board to ensure their organization has clearly defined its activities and entities in geopolitically sensitive markets. Such a framework or “compact” ought to be developed by the management team; however, the board has an important role to play in providing oversight and guidance. Also, the board could, where warranted, commission the development of additional compacts.

Compacts guide investments and operations in sectors with heightened regulatory and reputational risks. They specify levels of engagement: areas and entities with which the organization will not engage at all due to, for example, legal restrictions or acute physical security or reputational considerations (red); those where the organization will surge because there is clear upside and the area or entity is relatively insulated from risk (green); and those that require careful deliberation and a decision-making framework that weighs the opportunities and risks around activities and relationships that may be perceived as “lawful but awful” (yellow). The process of developing the compact helps create important internal alignment and buy-in amid diverging views on risk appetite—a critically important dimension of managing geopolitical risk.

Key questions to ask include the following:

• How much risk are we willing to accept in relation to the growth and competitive opportunity we see? Are our controls set at the right level?
• Should our controls manage the geopolitical risks as they are at this moment in time, or should they look ahead to how the risks may evolve and take a more restrictive position on an anticipatory basis?
• Do we have an adequate level of political risk insurance in place?

For many board members who came of age in the world of hyperglobalization, today’s fracturing global order requires a mental shift and an effort to upgrade their capabilities. Partnership with the executive team is vital in building the foresight, response, and adaptation capabilities needed to manage future shocks.

Ultimately, boards have a key role to play in exercising oversight to lift management’s abilities and imagination so their company can navigate the prevailing geopolitical currents and seek new growth horizons. No board today has a monopoly on the truth of how to do this, but at the companies that will thrive, boards are leaning into a world in flux with grit and granularity.

Ziad Haider is the global director of geopolitical risk in McKinsey’s Singapore office. Jon Huntsman Jr. , a former US ambassador to China, Russia, and Singapore and former governor of Utah, currently serves on several boards of directors and as a senior adviser and chair of McKinsey’s Geopolitics Advisory Council. Chris Leech is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Pittsburgh office and a former chair of McKinsey’s global risk, audit, and governance committee.

The authors wish to thank Lucas Lim and Nina Spielmann for their contributions to this article.

This article was edited by David Weidner, a senior editor in the Bay Area office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

How three global companies navigate geopolitical risk to build resilience

Geopolitical risk: Navigating a world in flux