Listen to this episode:
Abstract: Effective leadership requires a delicate balance between abstract, conceptual thinking and concrete, practical implementation. Research has consistently shown that the most transformative leaders are able to seamlessly toggle between these two modes of cognition. By envisioning lofty strategic visions while also outlining tangible steps to achieve them, leaders can more comprehensively address complex organizational challenges, motivate teams, and drive results. This paper explores the scientific foundation validating the link between balanced abstract and concrete thinking and leadership success. Specific techniques for developing this capability are discussed, as well as real-world examples demonstrating its application across industries. Mastering the ability to shift perspectives from 30,000 feet to ground level is a hallmark of leadership excellence that empowers leaders to inspire ambition and deliver real progress.
Effective leadership requires navigating complex challenges with nuanced solutions. Leaders must think both abstractly about lofty goals, ideals, and strategic visions while also thinking concretely about how to implement tangible steps to achieve those goals. This balance between abstract and concrete thinking is a hallmark of the most transformative leaders. By toggling between conceptual frameworks and practical applications, leaders can more comprehensively address problems, motivate teams, and drive results.
Today we will explore the research foundation validating the link between balanced thinking and leadership success. The ability to toggle between levels of thinking allows leaders to inspire ambition while also delivering real progress. Mastering this balance is a key component of outstanding leadership.
Abstract and Concrete Thinking as Predictors of Leadership
Substantial research has established the importance of balanced thinking for effective leadership. Studies have shown that abstract and concrete thinking represent distinct but complementary cognitive processes and the most adept leaders can seamlessly toggle between both levels.
Abstract thinking refers to conceptual reasoning focused on theories, symbolism, and greater conceptual frameworks rather than specific details (Cherry, 2019). It allows one to envision possibilities, see patterns, and connect ideas in novel ways. Abstract thinkers are future-oriented, seeing the broader context and envisioning possibilities.
Concrete thinking describes reasoning oriented toward practical specifics, empirical facts, and tangible implementation (Cherry, 2019). It focuses attention on immediate realities, sequences of events, and ‘how to’ details. Concrete thinkers are present and past-oriented, emphasizing realities and ‘what is.’
Research conducted by An et al. (2012) identified abstract and concrete thinking as two of the strongest individual factors predicting leadership emergence and effectiveness. Studies by Barbey et al. (2012) and Zaccaro et al. (1991) similarly link leadership success to an ability to reason at both conceptual/abstract and practical/concrete levels. Effective leaders balance long-term visioning with near-term execution.
Mumford et al.’s (2000) problem-solving model demonstrates how balancing perspectives allows leaders to more comprehensively address challenges through:
Problem definition (abstract: considering diverse angles, contexts)
Information gathering (concrete: emphasizing empirical specifics)
Conceptualizing solutions (abstract: thinking outside the box)
Implementing solutions (concrete: executing tangible next steps)
By toggling mindsets, leaders can leverage the strengths of both styles to more capably navigate complex problems organizations face. The research is clear - balanced thinking is a hallmark of leadership excellence.
Developing a Balanced Mindset
Leaders can develop their ability to toggle between abstract and concrete perspectives through deliberate practice employing specific techniques:
Create Separate ‘Thinking Spaces’: Designating certain environments, times of day, or thinking modes solely for conceptual work vs. practical planning fosters separation between abstract and concrete cognition. For example, morning walks may inspire abstract ideation while afternoons are for action-step detailing.
Regularly Reframe Perspectives: Consciously shifting lenses from 30,000 feet to ground-level views refreshes thinking. Leaders can schedule weekly time for ‘fresh eyes’ reviews of initiatives from the other mindset.
Use Decision Making Techniques: Tools like scenario planning, devil’s advocacy, and decision trees help consider options from multiple standpoints. Done regularly, these techniques strengthen balanced thinking muscles.
Cultivate a Balance-Seeking Network: Surrounding oneself with direct reports representing both abstract- and results-focused styles exposes leaders to the full spectrum of perspectives needed for well-rounded decisions.
With focused effort, any leader can learn to see challenges and solutions from conceptual and applied angles. Balanced thinking develops over time through exposure to diverse viewpoints and regular practice toggling mindsets.
Applying Balanced Thinking in the Workplace
Concretely applying both abstract visioning and pragmatic implementation allows truly transformational leadership. Here are examples of balanced thinking in action across industries:
Setting a Strategic Vision at a Nonprofit (Abstract): A homeless shelter's CEO led staff through envisioning exercises to reimagine their 10-year mission beyond the status quo. From this conceptual work emerged a bold goal of eradicating homelessness in their city through preventative and social programs.
Tactical Plan Implementation (Concrete): The CEO then worked collaboratively to outline quantifiable 3-year objectives, trackable initiatives, assigned workstreams, and resource needs to make the lofty vision achievable step-by-step. Regular tracking of milestones kept energy high.
Inspiring Design Thinking at a Tech Firm (Abstract): A VP challenged engineers to consider how their technology could be applied in entirely new domains. This divergent thinking sparked the creation of an AI platform now used across several industries far beyond its origins.
Prototyping and Piloting Ideas (Concrete): The VP then oversaw rapid prototyping and minimal viable product testing of the top ideas to identify most viable paths for scaling - keeping the bolder concepts grounded in reality checks.
Rethinking a Retailer's Business Model (Abstract): A C-suite executive led discussions re-envisioning their company's value proposition and role in clients' lives in a post-COVID world. They reimagined themselves as a lifestyle partner rather than just retailer.
Pilot Program Implementation (Concrete): Focus groups and surveys then helped detail how the refreshed mission and values could manifest, resulting in test-run lifestyle coaching and curated experience programs demonstrating the new vision's potential.
In each example, balanced thinking allowed the leaders to form inspiring abstract visions driving innovation while also ensuring disciplined, incremental progress through concrete planning and execution. This one-two punch of conceptual ambition and practicality delivers transformational results.
Conclusion
From galvanizing purpose to solving vexing challenges to scaling new opportunities - leadership demands navigating both abstract frameworks and concrete realities. The research clearly shows balanced thinking to be a hallmark of the most effective leaders. Through conscious practice developing separate ideation and implementation "lenses," leaders can more capably inspire and deliver.
Deliberately toggling between abstract and concrete perspectives enables encompassing complex problems from all angles vital for transformative solutions. It cultivates inspired visions that also stand the test of tangible execution. Mastering this balance is an attribute of leadership excellence, empowering leaders to more fully address challenges and drive progress. Developing versatile thinking across conceptual and applied domains should be a core competence for any practitioner aspiring to take their influence to the next level.
References
An, D., Subramanyam, M. A., Lin, C. P., & Zhang, J. (2012). Individual differences in abstract and concrete thinking and their relation to leadership. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(5), 1174-1190.
Barbey, A. K., Colom, R., Solomon, J., Krueger, F., Forbes, C., & Grafman, J. (2012). An integrative architecture for general intelligence and executive function revealed by lesion mapping. Brain, 135(Pt 4), 1154–1164.
Cherry, K. (2019, October 9). What is concrete thinking? Verywell Mind.
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11–35.
Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 308–315.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Balance Between Abstract and Concrete Thinking: A Key to Effective Leadership Human Capital Leadership Review, 18(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.18.1.1
