When faced with difficult decisions, most of us fall into the same trap: We choose the least bad option from whatever alternatives we’re given, then wonder why we’re still not satisfied with the outcome. But what if there were a way to create better options rather than simply choosing between existing ones?
In their book Creating Great Choices, Jennifer Riel and Roger L. Martin explore what integrative thinking is and how it differs from conventional decision-making approaches. They also examine why our usual methods of making tough choices often fail us, creating the problems that integrative thinking is designed to solve. To learn more, keep reading for our brief overview of their book.
Overview of Creating Great Choices
Jennifer Riel and Roger L. Martin are experts from the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management who have spent over a decade studying how successful leaders think about tough decisions. In their book Creating Great Choices, the authors reveal a systematic approach called integrative thinking that transforms how you handle difficult decisions by using the tension between opposing ideas as fuel for breakthrough solutions.
Published in 2017 as a practical follow-up to Martin’s The Opposable Mind, this book introduces a systematic approach called integrative thinking—a method for leveraging the tension between opposing ideas to generate superior solutions that transcend traditional either/or trade-offs. The authors developed this methodology through extensive research with business leaders, executives, and even elementary school students, refining their approach based on real-world applications across diverse contexts from corporate boardrooms to community organizations.
What Is Integrative Thinking?
Integrative thinking is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in productive tension and use that tension to create a new solution that’s better than either original option. Riel and Martin explain that instead of choosing between Option A or Option B—or settling for some lukewarm compromise between them—integrative thinking asks a different question: How might we create Option C that captures the best of both A and B while avoiding their limitations?
This differs from how most of us have been taught to make decisions: by treating opposing ideas as problems to be resolved through choice or compromise. The authors note that if you’re torn between two competing strategies, conventional wisdom says you should analyze the pros and cons of each strategy, pick the stronger option, and move forward. If neither option feels quite right, you might split the difference. Integrative thinking reframes this process and interprets the tension you feel when facing two conflicting options as a signal that neither existing option fully addresses your needs.
When to Use Integrative Thinking
Riel and Martin explain that integrative thinking isn’t necessary for every decision you face. If you’re choosing between clearly superior and inferior options, or if the stakes are low, traditional decision-making approaches work fine. Integrative thinking becomes valuable when you’re torn between alternatives that each offer something important, or when all your available options feel inadequate to address the challenge at hand. The authors explain that the key sign that integrative thinking might help is when you feel reluctant to make any of the choices in front of you. This reluctance often signals that the options don’t fully capture what’s needed—and that a better solution might be possible if you’re willing to invest the effort to create it.
As an example of when to use integrative thinking, Riel and Martin describe the challenge faced by Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, CEO of LEGO Group, when the company’s brand and innovation board decided to explore making a LEGO feature film. The company had had success with short films, but a previous attempt at a full-length movie had failed because LEGO played it so safe, to protect its brand, that the film was boring. This time, the authors explain, Knudstorp faced an impossible choice: 1) Give filmmakers creative control to ensure a great movie, but risk having outsiders damage the LEGO brand, or 2) maintain strict oversight to protect the brand, but likely end up with another mediocre film that great creative talent wouldn’t want to work on.
Most executives would have treated this as an optimization problem: How much creative control could they give up while still protecting the brand? How much risk could they accept to get great talent? But according to Riel and Martin, Knudstorp refused to accept this trade-off. Instead, he asked, “How might we get a brilliant movie and maintain stewardship of our brand?” He gave the filmmakers complete creative freedom, but required them to spend time with LEGO fans of all ages. By engaging with people who loved LEGO, the filmmakers also fell in love with it. They didn’t need oversight because they understood what made the brand special. The result was The LEGO Movie, which was a critical success and strengthened LEGO’s brand.
Why We Need a Better Way to Think About Tough Choices
Most of us believe we’re rational decision-makers who carefully weigh our options and choose the best path forward. But Riel and Martin explain that our decision-making is actually shaped by mental shortcuts, unconscious biases, and flawed processes that often lead to bad decisions. Understanding these limitations helps explain why integrative thinking offers such a powerful alternative.
Mental Models Shape Our Thinking
Your mind doesn’t process reality directly: It creates simplified models of the world that help you navigate complexity without becoming overwhelmed. Riel and Martin explain that these mental models act as filters, highlighting some information while screening out other details. They’re essential for functioning in a complex world, but they also create blind spots in your decision-making. When you encounter a new situation, your brain quickly categorizes it based on past experiences, recalling similar situations and how you handled them. These comparisons help you make sense of new information, but they also limit how you see possibilities.
According to Riel and Martin, mental models impair your decision-making in several ways. First, they’re incomplete representations of reality that inevitably leave out important details. Second, they operate automatically, making it hard to recognize when they’re leading you astray. Third, once you’ve settled on a way of understanding a situation, it becomes difficult to see it differently. Once you’ve categorized a problem and decided how to approach it, that feels like the right answer. You naturally defend your model and look for evidence that supports it. This makes it hard to appreciate that reasonable people might see the same situation completely differently—and that their perspectives might contain valuable insights.
Cognitive Biases Distort Our Perception
Even when you’re aware of your mental models, cognitive biases systematically distort how you process information and make decisions. Riel and Martin argue that two biases are particularly damaging. First, the affinity bias leads you to spend more time with people who share your perspectives and dismiss those who disagree with your viewpoint. You unconsciously assume that people who see things differently are uninformed or misguided.
Second, the projection bias causes you to assume that others think similarly to how you think. You overestimate how much other people share your priorities, values, and reasoning. This makes it difficult to appreciate others’ perspectives because you unconsciously expect them to reach the same conclusions you would. Together, these biases create a reinforcing cycle, according to the authors: You gravitate toward people who confirm your existing views, which strengthens your confidence in your mental models and makes you less likely to seek out alternative views. The result is increasingly narrow thinking disguised as rational analysis.
Organizational Decision-Making Makes Things Worse
Riel and Martin explain that most organizations make the decision-making process worse by prioritizing speed and consensus over thoroughly exploring alternatives. The typical approach that teams follow when they need to make a decision takes a linear path: Define the problem, generate a few options, analyze their pros and cons using shared criteria, and choose the option that seems least objectionable.
The process of making decisions as a group often feels rigorous and evidence-based, but Riel and Martin contend that it amplifies the problems of individual decision-making. It discourages disagreement and creates incentives to reach quick decisions that everyone can accept, even if nobody is enthusiastic about them. The result is that teams make choices that seem like the products of thorough analysis but really represent a narrow examination of the evidence based on simplified assumptions. They rarely question whether better alternatives might be possible or whether their framing of the problem limits their options.
The Three Missing Ingredients
Effective decision-making requires three capabilities that are typically absent from both individual and organizational processes—abilities that Riel and Martin argue are central to integrative thinking.
Metacognition: Think about your thinking. This skill helps you develop awareness of your mental models and their limitations. The authors argue that most people have never been taught to examine their reasoning processes explicitly. You know what you think, but you rarely consider how you think or why you think it. Developing metacognitive awareness allows you to recognize when your mental models might constrain your view of possibilities and creates space to consider alternative approaches.
Empathy: Genuinely understand how others see the world. This goes far beyond acknowledging that people disagree, according to Riel and Martin. It requires investing real effort to understand the logic behind alternative perspectives, especially when they differ from yours. When you can appreciate why someone else’s viewpoint makes sense to them, you gain access to insights that can enrich your understanding and reveal new possibilities you couldn’t generate alone.
Creativity: Systematically generate new alternatives. Most people think of creativity as a mysterious talent possessed by artists and inventors, but the authors explain it’s actually a learnable set of skills for connecting ideas in novel ways. Effective creativity requires giving yourself permission to explore possibilities that might seem impractical initially, building on existing ideas to create something new, and maintaining patience with the messiness of the creative process.
How to Create Better Options
The limitations we’ve explored—mental models, cognitive biases, and flawed organizational processes—aren’t inevitable features of the decision-making process. Riel and Martin have developed a systematic approach that transforms how you handle difficult decisions by treating the tension between opposing ideas as fuel for creativity rather than a problem to solve.
Stage 1: Articulate Opposing Models
Begin by writing a brief problem statement that captures the specific challenge you’re trying to solve. Riel and Martin recommend framing this as “How might we…” rather than “Should we…” or “Can we…” Make sure everyone involved understands and agrees that this particular problem is worth solving. Next, identify two solutions that represent opposite extremes. The authors emphasize that you shouldn’t settle for variations that are only slightly different.
For instance, imagine that your company is struggling with workplace policies after experiencing the benefits and drawbacks of remote work during the pandemic. Rather than debating whether workers should be “mostly remote with some office days” versus “mostly in-office with some flexibility,” push to complete opposites: “All employees must work from home with no physical office space” versus “All employees must be in the office every day.” These alternatives create the tension you need to find creative solutions. You’re not trying to create implementable options: You’re establishing opposing models to highlight different approaches to the challenge.
Stage 2: Examine the Models in Tension
Now explore how each opposing model works and what makes it appealing. The authors explain that this isn’t about listing pros and cons—it’s about genuinely appreciating the logic behind each approach. For each model, ask yourself: How does this create value? What assumptions does it rely on? What cause-and-effect relationships make it work? Spend time understanding why reasonable people would choose each approach before judging which is better. For example, what problems does a remote work policy solve? Does it reduce costs, expand talent access, or improve work-life balance? What benefits does the in-office policy provide? Does it enable collaboration, strengthen company culture, or facilitate mentorship?
Riel and Martin stress that it’s crucial to pay attention to the assumptions behind each model. In our example, the fully remote approach might assume that workers’ productivity isn’t location-dependent and that technology can replicate in-person interactions. The fully in-office model might assume that physical presence is essential for effective teamwork and that remote work inevitably reduces engagement. Look for the specific mechanisms that produce each model’s promised outcomes—understanding these relationships helps you identify which elements will be most important to preserve in your eventual solution.
According to the authors, you’ll often discover that the models aren’t as different as they initially appeared. Both might prioritize employee productivity and satisfaction through different mechanisms, or both might aim to maximize collaboration with different theories about how to achieve it. These underlying similarities provide raw material for creative integration.
Stage 3: Explore Creative Possibilities
Now, shift from understanding your existing models to creating new alternatives that resolve the tension between them. This creative phase is where the breakthrough happens, according to Riel and Martin. Rather than accepting the trade-off between your opposing models, you’ll generate entirely new possibilities that capture the best of both approaches. The authors have identified three pathways that can guide this creative exploration, and they recommend using all three to generate multiple possibilities rather than settling on your first idea.
1) The Hidden Gem Pathway: Identify one essential element from each opposing model and discard everything else. Look for the most valuable components that could work together in a new way rather than trying to preserve entire models. In the remote work policy example, you might extract “flexibility and autonomy” from the remote model and “spontaneous collaboration” from the in-office model, then ask: “How might we preserve individual flexibility while enabling spontaneous collaboration?” This could lead you to a solution based on activity-based working—where employees come to the office specifically for collaborative tasks like brainstorming sessions or team meetings, but work remotely for focused individual tasks.
2) The Double Down Pathway: Riel and Martin explain that taking one model to an extreme may actually produce key benefits typically associated with the opposing model. For the remote work example, you might double down on the fully remote model by eliminating physical offices entirely—but invest those cost savings in intensive virtual collaboration tools, regular team retreats, and structured virtual social interactions. This extreme approach to remote work could actually create stronger team connections than a traditional office environment by being more intentional about relationship-building.
3) The Decomposition Pathway: Break your problem into distinct parts so you can apply different models to separate components. Riel and Martin explain that this path can help you figure out that the best solution to a problem actually involves two different activities or two separate ideas. You might decompose the workplace challenge by function, so that creative and strategic work happens remotely to minimize distractions, while client meetings and training sessions happen in shared spaces. Or you could decompose by career stage: Senior employees who need autonomy work remotely, while junior employees who benefit from mentorship and cultural immersion work primarily in-office with managers.
Stage 4: Assess and Refine Your Solutions
Lastly, you’ll turn from creating ideas to testing and refining them in the real world. Riel and Martin recommend that rather than trying to prove your solutions will work, focus on learning what conditions would make them successful and what assumptions might need adjustment. This stage involves three key activities that help you move from creative possibilities to practical implementation.
1) Make your possibilities concrete through storytelling, visualization, or simple prototypes. Riel and Martin emphasize that the more tangible you make your ideas, the easier it becomes to spot potential problems and improvement opportunities. For example, if your workplace policy solution involves activity-based working, create a detailed story about how it would work for a specific employee during a typical week—when they’d choose to work remotely, what would bring them to the office, and how they’d coordinate with teammates. If it involves different policies for different roles, draw a diagram showing how various team members would interact across locations.
2) Identify what would have to be true for each possibility to succeed. Riel and Martin recommend evaluating what conditions, resources, or changes would be necessary. It’s also useful to identify what assumptions you’re making about how people will respond or how systems will function. For your workplace solution, you might assume that employees will be able to effectively decide when to work remotely and when to come into the office, or that managers can maintain team cohesion across different work locations. These requirements help you understand what to test and monitor as you move forward.
3) Design small experiments to test your critical assumptions rather than implementing full solutions immediately. According to Riel and Martin, you should embrace iteration and refinement throughout this process—your first version of any creative solution will be imperfect, and the goal is to learn quickly and improve based on real-world feedback. If your workplace solution depends on employees making good decisions about when to collaborate in person, test this with a small team for a month. If it requires new technology or coordination processes, create a limited trial to see how they work in practice.
Develop the Right Mindset for Integrative Thinking
Successfully applying this four-stage methodology requires you to cultivate specific mindsets and practices that support creative problem-solving. Riel and Martin identify several elements that work together to enable breakthrough thinking:
Embrace complexity and delay closure. The authors recommend resisting your natural tendency to jump quickly to solutions or choose sides in debates. Creative possibilities emerge from tolerating tension and ambiguity longer than feels comfortable, so practice staying curious about opposing viewpoints even when they conflict with your initial preferences.
Build genuine empathy for different perspectives. According to Riel and Martin, this goes beyond intellectual acknowledgment that people disagree. Take time to understand why alternative viewpoints make sense to those who hold them—observe people in their natural environments, engage them in conversation to understand their experiences, and when possible, put yourself in situations where you can experience their challenges directly.
Cultivate systematic creativity through deliberate practice. The authors emphasize that creativity isn’t random inspiration—it’s a systematic process of connecting ideas in new ways. Start by giving yourself permission to explore possibilities that seem impractical initially, then build on existing ideas rather than trying to create from nothing. Create quick prototypes and mock-ups to make abstract ideas more concrete, and allow time for ideas to develop rather than rushing to immediate solutions.
Practice collaborative inquiry with diverse teams. While empathy is something you develop individually, Riel and Martin note that the best integrative solutions typically emerge when teams with diverse perspectives work together to understand different viewpoints. Create psychological safety for everyone on your team to share unconventional ideas and challenge existing assumptions, focusing the group’s energy on understanding rather than defending positions or winning arguments.
Maintain a learning orientation throughout the process. The authors remind readers to view solutions as hypotheses to be tested rather than final answers to be defended. Stay open to modifying your approach based on new information or changing circumstances, since even successful integrative solutions may need adjustment as conditions evolve.
FAQ
1. What is integrative thinking?
Integrative thinking is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in tension and use that tension to create a new solution better than either original option.
2. When should you use integrative thinking?
Use integrative thinking when you face choices where each option offers something important or when none of the available options feels adequate.
3. Why do our usual decision-making approaches fall short?
Our thinking is shaped by mental shortcuts, biases, and flawed organizational processes that narrow our options and limit better solutions.
4. How do mental models affect decision-making?
Mental models filter how we see the world, but they also create blind spots, operate automatically, and make it hard to consider alternative perspectives.
5. What cognitive biases interfere with good decisions?
Affinity bias makes you prefer people who agree with you, and projection bias makes you assume others think like you, narrowing your viewpoint.
6. What are the key stages of creating better options?
Making good options includes articulating opposing models, examining them in tension, exploring creative possibilities, and assessing and refining new solutions.
