Bound up with

Hello
In the following text, does the word "thought must be so bound up with action", in terms of priority between thought and action, means "action must precede thought"?

"Out of this discussion comes a whole range of possible relationships between thought and action. There are times when thought should precede action, and guide it, so that the dichotomy between formulation and implementation holds up, more or less, as in the design school. Other times, however, especially during or immediately after major unexpected shifts in the environment, thought must be so bound up with action that 'learning' becomes a better notion than 'designing' for what has to happen. But perhaps most common are a whole range of possibilities in between, where thought and action respond to each other."

Source: Strategy Safari - Henry Mintzberg

No. There’s no such suggestion in those remarks – although in an emergency it might indeed be necessary to act first and rationalise it afterwards! I think the idea here is related to the fairly common expression that two things are closely bound up with each other, or with one another, meaning that they’re metaphorically entwined, so virtually inseparable.

lingobingo said:

No. There’s no such suggestion in those remarks – although in an emergency it might indeed be necessary to act first and rationalise it afterwards! I think the idea here is related to the fairly common expression that two things are closely bound up with each other, or with one another, meaning that they’re metaphorically entwined, so virtually inseparable.

Thank you very much for the comment.
But I was a bit confused. As I know, the remark considers three possible relationships between thought and action:
1- When thought should precede action, and guide it, ...
2- When thought follows action in closely relationship. As an argument for my impression, "learning" happens when we first act and then based on consequences we make a decision (thought) about the next act. The mentioned text remarks "... thought must be so bound up with action that 'learning' becomes a better notion than 'designing' for what has to happen".
3- When thought and action respond to each other. It means sometimes thought precedes action (therefore we have intended strategies) and sometimes action precedes thought (therefore we have emergent strategies).

This was my impression. Of course, I may be wrong about the second. I would appreciate you for comment your opinion.

You may be right, but none of that makes much sense to me, I’m afraid.

What the text actually says (twice) is that there’s a “whole range” of possible relationships. But it only specifies two, and even those are quite vague. The first is the most obvious: to formulate a plan of action before you do anything. The second is a state of flux (caused by “major unexpected shifts in the environment” – whatever that means?) in which pre-planning isn’t possible, so you have little option but to just let things happen and use it as a learning opportunity.

lingobingo said:

But it only specifies two ...

Does the meaning of "in between", between these two possible relationship that it specify?

"But perhaps most common are a whole range of possibilities in between, where thought and action respond to each other."

Yes.