Hi Simon,
This is thought-provoking.
I followed the link to the “Knowing-Doing Gap” and was particularly struck by this sentence in the book summary:
“Executives must use plans, analysis, meetings, and presentations to inspire deeds, not as substitutes for action.”
The phrase “inspire deeds” really stood out to me.
I also noted your initial focus on DE&I, LDH, PPP, and II&BSS—which, depending on the organization, may be embedded in business purpose (e.g., PAS 808), assigned to management teams, or left as matters of conscience for rational staff.
Curious about the concept of rationality in organizations, I asked ChatGPT:
“What is a rational man—and does one exist within business organizations?”
The response aligned with my own thinking:
“In theory, businesses encourage rational decision-making through strategic planning, cost-benefit analysis, and data-driven decision-making. However, in reality, human behavior within organizations is influenced by psychological biases, social dynamics, and emotions, making pure rationality rare.”
Reading further:
“A purely rational man rarely exists in business organizations because human behavior is inherently complex and influenced by emotions, biases, and external pressures. However, rational decision-making models do play a significant role in structuring business operations and leadership strategies. Instead of aiming for perfect rationality, the best business leaders balance logic with emotional intelligence, strategy with ethics, and data with human intuition.”
For me, the question is: Is this ‘balance’ a calculated, rational, and intentional one—or simply the result of evolution and individuals coping?
With BIG, we are precisely exploring rational decision-making models alongside psychological biases, social dynamics, and emotions. Engaging with BIG is about reassessing the balance between structured rationality and the (imperfect) organic behaviors that emerge within organizations.
I don’t see BIG as an attempt to enforce perfect rationality—something governance professionals might strive for—or as a path toward an ultimate DAO, which some might view as chaotic. Instead, it is designed to support integrated decision-making, aligning multiple stakeholders (we’ve identified several) to improve outcomes. The ultimate implementation aims to connect strategy to delivery in an end-to-end manner.
BIG provides structures to make logic more visible, strategy more aligned with what matters to the organization, and information that enhances, rather than replaces, intuition.
The logical starting point is a current-state analysis:
What challenges do stakeholders face?
What soft and hard processes (to use your phrasing) exist within and around those challenges?
Given stakeholder positions and influence, can we help define a new ‘as-is’ state by bringing more rational decision-making into play?
Can we do this holistically—or “BIG”—so that the entire ecosystem functions more effectively?
Ultimately, can we motivate stakeholders to take action—to be inspired to deed—by showing them a clear way to engage their organization and define the necessary capabilities?
Perhaps, after this rebalance, executives will indeed be more able to “use plans, analysis, meetings, and presentations to inspire deeds, not as substitutes for action.”
D
