From PESTEL to GESTALT: why macroforces stopped fitting into a list

A model from 1967

The practice of looking outside the company before planning has a date and an author. In 1967, Francis Aguilar published Scanning the Business Environment and proposed an acronym now forgotten: ETPS, for economic, technical, political and social. It was the first attempt to give method to what executives had been doing on instinct.

The model grew along with the world. The environmental dimension entered in the years following the Montreal Protocol of 1987, and gained decisive weight after the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The legal dimension entered when regulation and globalization began to determine where a company could produce and sell. The result is the PESTEL that most planning still uses: political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal.

Six boxes. In each one, a list. The problem is not that the boxes are wrong. It is that the list format hides exactly what decides the outcome today.

What has changed since then

Two things, mainly.

The first is that geopolitics is back at the center of the corporate conversation after three decades of being treated as background noise. Decisions about where to produce, who to buy from and which currency to invoice in stopped being technical and became political.

The second is that talent stopped being a consequence and became a constraint. The generation now entering the market negotiates the relationship between work and life on different terms than the one before it. Generative AI automates precisely the kind of task that used to train the early-career professional. Remote and hybrid work expanded the hiring market and, in the same move, the market for losing people. And there is a shortage of people with technical and digital training in practically every sector that needs them.

None of those four things is a human resources detail. Together they determine what a company is able to execute, which makes talent an external force like any other.

The seventh force

Hence GESTALT: (geo)political, economic, social, technological, environmental, legal and talent. Seven forces instead of six, with geopolitics recovering its own name and talent gaining an axis of its own.

But adding a force is not the main change. The main change is what you do with them.

Separating hype from trend

Every list of macroforces runs the same risk: treating as a trend what is only a topic of conversation. The difference between the two is not settled in discussion. It is settled by an indicator.

For each force selected as relevant, the discipline is to choose one or two quantitative indicators and update them at a fixed interval, preferably quarterly. Official statistics for the economic and social dimensions. World Economic Forum and World Bank reports for the talent and geopolitical dimensions. Patent counts and scientific publication counts for the technological one, which is where the signal appears before the product. Bills moving through the legislature for the legal one. Volume of press mentions to measure what is attention and, by contrast, what is substance.

A topic with many mentions and no indicator in motion is hype. An indicator in motion with few mentions is usually the opportunity.

What the matrix does that the list does not

A GESTALT reading has three steps. Update the seven forces with what changed over the period. Identify, within each one, the trends that matter to your industry and the indicators that track them. And then map the interconnections.

The third step is what sets the model apart. Every relevant observation is recorded under two scenarios, the force accelerating and the force slowing down, and for each scenario you estimate the expected impact on each of the other six dimensions. What comes out of that is not a list. It is a matrix in which you can see, for example, that a regulatory restriction on data pushes up customer acquisition cost, which in turn changes the price structure, which in turn changes the commercial talent profile the company needs to hire.

That chain exists either way. The difference is whether it is visible before or after the cost shows up in the results.

Why the name

Gestalt is the psychology term for the instant when scattered points form a figure. The idea is older: Aristotle already observed that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Applied to planning, it says something simple and uncomfortable. A company can track all seven forces correctly, one by one, and still fail to see what is taking shape, because what is taking shape is in none of them. It is between them.

See all insights