Forcing Perspective in Strategy & Facilitation
Facilitating a series of strategy workshops for a client, I realized a peculiar pattern. At the end of each of those workshops, I asked the group to evaluate strategic options within an impact-effort-matrix. In all of these workshops, I could observe viable solutions disappear from deliberation. Bigger initiatives were considered too complex to pursue. Innovation initiatives were considered too big of a change.
A concept that has been heavily used by architects and designers helped me understand what had happened: forced perspective.
Through that lense, I had an epiphany: choosing impact-effort evaluations, I had forced a specific perspective onto the group.
What is forced perspective?
“In architecture, a structure can be made to seem larger, taller, farther away or otherwise by adjusting the scale of objects in relation to the spectator, increasing or decreasing perceived depth.”
Forced perspective has been used centuries ago in architecture. The Parthenon in Athens was built 432 BC. It spurts different column bases and refined curves to counteract an impression of wrong proportions. The actual lengths change the more outward the columns are situated.
In AD 300 the Aula Palatina in Trier was built with a similar concept. Windows and the coffer of the apse were designed slightly smaller compared to the main area. When church goers step inside through the main entrance they have a feeling of balance.
The opposite technique has been used by imagineers to create parts of Disney World. They created an illusion of height and grandeur from the visitor’s point of view. Building the upper levels of the castle smaller in scale the castle appears taller than it actually is.
More recently it has been adapted in film-making and photography. One of the most famous examples being Lord of the Rings, where Hobbit’s housings were built smaller than expected. Human-sized Gandalf thus feels out of place for the smaller-sized furniture and utensils. In a different scene, is placed closer to the camera than Frodo to adapt the perception of size.
Changing conversations by constraining a point of view
This guided point of view changes physical space to manipulate perception. The same mechanism can be deployed by strategists and facilitators when we choose a framework or frame a question.
As soon as we pick a model, a framework or a toolset to work with, we are changing the way we assess a situation. We are changing the way a group formulates their strategy. Changing the way possible solutions are generated.
Pick Alexander Osterwalder’s Value Proposition Canvas and guide stakeholders to evaluate the alignment between a company’s offerings and customers’ needs.
Choose “Playing to Win“ as your strategy framework of choice and force leadership through a creative and iterative approach to strategy-making.
Even when we, as strategists or facilitators, ask any good question, we are forcing a different perspective. “How might we…?” generates more ideas? ”Which of these is quickest to implement?“ narrows down choice.
We are shaping the way people perceive a situation.
In the best scenario, strategists and facilitators are conscious and transparent about the tools they pick and questions they ask. Without conscious intent and participant awareness, they influence decisions through opaque choices.
In the end, I decided to incorporate McKinsey’s Three Horizons of Growth model into the decision-making process to initiate conversations around timelines and the need to innovate long-term.