The Marketing Journal
  • About
  • Interviews
  • Articles
  • Videos
  • Book Reviews
  • Views
  • Subscribe
“The AREA Method: When A Good Strategy Is Not Enough” – Cheryl Strauss Einhorn

“The AREA Method: When A Good Strategy Is Not Enough” – Cheryl Strauss Einhorn

August 12, 2017

As marketers, we sometimes struggle to turn our strategies into results.  We asked renowned decision-making expert Cheryl Strauss Einhorn to explain how to execute on good ideas.

Recently there’s a lot of evidence of high profile strategy failures, whether it’s the healthcare overhaul in Congress, the inability of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to bolster oil prices by cutting supplies, or disappointments from hot start-up initial public offerings like photo-sharing app maker SNAP and meal-kit service Blue Apron that haven’t delivered on their expected growth strategies leading shareholders to punish their stocks.

It’s not that these organizations lack strategy. It’s that they haven’t produced results. The difference is critical; these groups had a clear vision or purpose –although it’s up for debate whether the strategies were good ones –but weren’t able to execute their vision. They lacked the ability to translate from a vision into a practical solution.

Republicans had a plan to repeal and even to replace parts of the healthcare law. OPEC has production quotas for each of its members and SNAP and Blue Apron have designs for their respective futures. The problem: A plan is meaningless unless there is a clear system for how to make decisions and solve problems. An organization is not its leader alone; the leader can only achieve his or her goals if she creates a system for buy-in.

That means that leaders have to know not only what to do but also how to carry it out so that each individual responsible for participating in the plan’s delivery knows the process and its practices; The leader needs a clear roadmap for what to do, when, in what way, why and with whom, both inside and outside of the organization. Doing that effectively means that leaders need to pay homage to incentive structures to ensure that employees or other stakeholders align with the priorities of the organization as a whole. Therefore, good decision making, to my thinking, needs to combine the social performance side of human behavior with the metric aspect of decision making.

Positive organizational change needs a collaborative backbone married with a rigorous research process to collect and vet hypotheses and data. What this means in practice is that a leader may want to execute a strategy with a decision-making system that uses the following tools:

  1. A perspective taking process that investigates the incentives and motives of stakeholders to create buy-in and solve problems holistically.
  2. A rigorous research process that collects data and tests assumptions against evidence
  3. An audit trail that encourages transparency and records a team’s thinking, assertions and facts making it easier for employees and stakeholders to understand how and why tasks were completed the way they were. It also allows for the capture of corporate knowledge and allows the success of one team to impact the whole organization.

These three steps together enable organizations to work collaboratively without barriers in a non-threatening way. The perspective-taking acknowledges and clarifies the different vantage points that exist within a team or organization and the rigorous research demands that evidence and not assertion ground the work. Together this kind of a system combines critical thinking with performance. In short it enables a strategy to have the potential to succeed.

Let’s take SNAP’s problem. SNAP, the messaging and chat app that shares and distributes images and videos that viewers only have ten seconds to view before it automatically deletes itself, just missed three big growth targets: earnings, revenues and users. Shareholders have punished its stock, sending shares down almost by half since its initial public offering in March.

The company’s strategy has been to claim that it’s no longer a camera company but an advertising platform. The problem: There’s scant evidence. Too, with social media giant Facebook buying competitor Instagram and copying SNAP’s basic model, the company is under pressure to show that there’s a strong link between its process and outcomes.

Yet it failed on all accounts. In its earnings release this week and its conference call SNAP wasn’t able to demonstrate that it understood how to translate from a vision into a practical solution. It couldn’t articulate the perspectives of its users, a research process that might uncover data to support its assertions or an audit trail recording how and why it is executing its plans the way it says it wants to.

The goal for any leader is to know how to work with and through ambiguity. Companies need to have a system to triangulate missing facts so that they may assess the rapidly changing environment in which they operate with both confidence and conviction. It means dealing with failures of both data and analysis since the most likely hypothesis is not the one with the most confirming data but instead is the one with the least disconfirming data. It doesn’t matter if all looks well and yet there is one insurmountable hurdle; that’s when the plan fails, as sadly SNAP’s shrinking user base may indicate.

The bottom line is that leaders may want to consider what systems they are using to execute their strategies. Effective execution needs a focus on human behavior and incentives as well as thoughtful data collection: A good process plus good information equals great decisions.

As a journalist, teacher, consultant, mother, sister, wife, daughter, and friend, I’ve learned that there are few absolutes—and many gray areas. We each experience the world differently, bringing our own viewpoint— and biases—to everything we do. That’s why I put together my decision making system that I call the AREA Method, a perspective-taking system that enables us to solve problems holistically by zeroing in on stakeholder incentives and managing for assumptions. It enables leaders to navigate gray areas and avoid those mental shortcuts that enable us to make small decisions easily but may impair our judgment when making big decisions. In short, I developed it to make big decisions better.

But in developing AREA, I realized that the process does much more than provide a research and decision-making roadmap. It makes your work work for you. It heightens your awareness of the motivations and incentives of others. It helps you to avoid bias in your work and to engage with people and problems more mindfully. For while decision making is about ideas, ideas aren’t enough; there is an important gap between having ideas and making good decisions about what to do with those ideas.

The AREA process gets its name from the perspectives that it addresses: absolute, relative, exploration & exploitation and analysis. The first A, or Absolute, refers to primary, uninfluenced information from the source, or sources, at the center of your research and decision making process. R, or relative, refers to the perspectives of outsiders around your research subject. It is secondary information, or information that has been filtered through sources connected to your subject. E, or exploration and exploitation, are the twin engines of creativity, one being about expanding your research breadth and the other about depth. Exploration asks you to listen to other peoples’ perspectives by developing sources and interviewing. Exploitation asks you to focus inward, on you as the decision maker, to examine how you process information, examining and challenging your own assumptions and judgment. The second A, analysis, synthesizes all of these perspectives, processing and interpreting the information you’ve collected.

By emphasizing perspective-taking, AREA acknowledges that although you may think that you understand how to solve a particular problem, your understanding of that problem is most likely incomplete and different from how other key actors see it. By walking in their shoes, you will better recognize their considerations and incentives. You may even come to understand the facts differently. Further, by moving through a research and decision making process that acknowledges the need for empathy and understanding, you can also better manage your own perspective, assumptions and judgments and more easily make a thoughtful and successful decision.

In addition, AREA inverts traditional decision making. It begins with framing your decision not as a problem per se, but instead asking you something that you can often much more easily define: What constitutes a good outcome for you personally? It turns decision making upside down so that instead of focusing on what you don’t know, you can focus on what matters to you in the outcome.

By defining what matters, what I call your “critical concepts,” AREA gets at what you are really solving for. The critical concepts not only get at the driving purpose behind your decision but also they keep your work targeted and focused on the few key factors that you really need to understand. With the right framework, the right approach to decision-making—the right process—you can turn good ideas into great results.

For a similar analysis of the OPEC situation click here >>


Cheryl Strauss Einhorn
is the founder of CSE Consulting and teaches as an adjunct professor at Columbia Business School. 

Related Posts

“Technology and the Common Good” – Christian Sarkar and Philip Kotler

B2B Marketing /

“Technology and the Common Good” – Christian Sarkar and Philip Kotler

“Wicked Problems” – An Interview with Philip Kotler and Christian Sarkar

B2C Marketing /

“Wicked Problems” – An Interview with Philip Kotler and Christian Sarkar

“Dragon proofing your legacy brand” – Grant McCracken

Decision Making /

“Dragon proofing your legacy brand” – Grant McCracken

‹ “Improving Economic Prosperity through Nation Branding” – David J Reibstein › “The Silver Lining of Click Fraud” – David Rodnitzky and Frank Grillo
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Recent Posts

  • “Technology and the Common Good” – Christian Sarkar and Philip Kotler
  • “Cultural Presence: The Social Function of Milan Design Week” – Barbara Dal Corso
  • “Wicked Problems” – An Interview with Philip Kotler and Christian Sarkar
  • “Dragon proofing your legacy brand” – Grant McCracken
  • OP-ED: “Autopsy Of a Brand: Tesla” – George Tsakraklides
  • “The 5th P is Purpose” – Christian Sarkar and Philip Kotler
  • “The CEO-as-Brand Era: How Leadership Ego is Fueling Tesla’s Meltdown” – Ilenia Vidili
  • “The Future of Marketing is the Quest for Good” – Christian Sarkar and Philip Kotler
  • “Questions for the New Year” – John Hagel
  • “Enlightened Management – An Interview with Gabriele Carboni”
  • “If you’re not thinking segments, you’re not thinking” – Anthony Ulwick
  • “Does Marketing Need Curtailment for the Sake of Sustainability?” – Philip Kotler
  • ‘Social profit orientation’ can help companies and nonprofits alike do more good in the world by Leonard L. Berry, Lerzan Aksoy, and Tracey Danaher
  • “Understanding Hallyu: The Impact of Korean Pop Culture” by Sanya Anand and David Seyheon Baek
  • “Go-to-Market (GTM): A New Definition” – Karthi Ratnam
  • “Jobs-to-be-Done for Government” – Anthony Ulwick
  • “The Power of Superconsumers” – Christopher Lochhead, Eddie Yoon, & Katrina Kirsch
  • “Zoom Out/Zoom In – Making It Personal” – John Hagel
  • “Regeneration or Extinction?” – a discussion with Philip Kotler, Christian Sarkar, and Enrico Foglia
  • “Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap” – James Dyke, Robert Watson, and Wolfgang Knorr
  • “The allure of the ad-lib: New research identifies why people prefer spontaneity in entertainment” – Jacqueline Rifkin and Katherine Du
  • “What is ‘ethical AI’ and how can companies achieve it?” by Dennis Hirsch and Piers Norris Turner
  • “How the US military used magazines to target ‘vulnerable’ groups with recruiting ads” – Jeremiah Favara
  • “Ethics and AI: Policies for Governance and Regulation” – Aryssa Yoon, Christian Sarkar, and Philip Kotler
  • “Product Feature Prioritization —How to Align on the Right List” – Bob Pennisi
  • “The Community Value Pyramid” – Christian Sarkar, Philip Kotler, Enrico Foglia
  • “Next Practices in Museum Experience Design” – Barbara Dal Corso
  • “What does ESG mean?” – Luciana Echazú and Diego C. Nocetti
  • “ChatGPT could be a game-changer for marketers, but it won’t replace humans any time soon” – Omar H. Fares
  • “If Your Brand Comes Before Your Category, You’re Doing It Wrong” – Eddie Yoon, Nicolas Cole, Christopher Lochhead

Categories

  • Advertising
  • AI
  • Analytics
  • B2B Marketing
  • B2C Marketing
  • Big Data
  • Book Reviews
  • Brand Activism
  • Branding
  • Category Design
  • Community
  • Content Marketing
  • COVID-19
  • Creativity
  • Customer Culture
  • Customer Engagement
  • Customer Experience
  • Dark Marketing
  • Decision Making
  • Design
  • Digital Marketing
  • Ecosystems & Platforms
  • Ethics
  • Go to Market
  • Innovation
  • Internet of Things
  • Jobs-to-be-Done
  • Leadership
  • Manipulation
  • Marketing Technology
  • Markets & Segmentation
  • Meaning
  • Metrics & Outcomes
  • Millennials
  • Mobile Marketing
  • Non Profit Marketing
  • Organizational Alignment
  • Peace Marketing
  • Privacy
  • Product Marketing
  • Regeneration
  • Regenerative Marketing
  • Research
  • Retail
  • Risk & Reputation
  • Sales
  • Services Marketing
  • Social Media
  • Strategy & Business Models
  • Sustainability
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos

Archives

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • September 2024
  • March 2024
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • October 2022
  • August 2022
  • May 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • September 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016

Back to Top

© 2016-19 The Marketing Journal and the individual author(s). All Rights Reserved
Produced by: Double Loop Marketing LLC
By using this site, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to the use of cookies, our privacy policy, and our terms of use.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.Accept Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy