Currently, quite a few organizations have grown to the point that they are now serving a diverse collection of communities spread out over a large geographic area. This is the result of the company consistently pursuing a series of strategic goals during the last 10 - 15 years. Now that they achieved this desired outcome, they are encountering a unique set of problems.
One of the most interesting problems, which has surfaced as a result of all this strategic growth, has come in the form of a question: How do we build on the local service opportunities and meet the local needs of each community we serve, and also keep consistency in certain systems and processes across the entire company?
The original intent of the strategic growth was to honor local choices, local needs, and local decision-making within each community. And, at the exact same time, it was to build a comprehensive and integrated service delivery platform across the entire company footprint.
The obvious problem moving forward is how to balance local needs with corporate needs and corporate infrastructure. This problem is not going away and will require executives and managers to lead and work within complex adaptive situations and systems on a regular basis. And this is going to be very hard to do during the next 5-7 years because we are dealing with on-going complexity and working through on-going adaptive problems, which is not a primary skill set for many people in leadership position. Still, it is possible to do this level of work in a thoughtful and careful manner once a common framework and understanding is built.
Words Matter
The best leaders and managers understand that initiating strategic growth and maintaining strategic growth are two completely different actions. Typically, the essential elements for maintaining growth are completely missing in most strategic plans. There is an assumption that SOP, standard operating procedures or processes, will handle all the problems that will surface. However, in a wildly dynamic market environment and when the geographic foot print is wide and diverse, there rarely is enough time for the “standard” within standard operating procedures to be established before it needs to change.
In order to lead well through complexity and periods of volatile adaptivity, common language and a shared understanding about the meaning of key words is mission critical to effective problem solving and decision-making. When all gathered hold these common definitions and understanding, i.e. common language, it gives all involved the capacity to plan well and the capacity to execute the plan well through dynamic challenges before the organization.
The first words that need to be defined are technical problems and adaptive problems. As Ron Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linsky in their book, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World (Harvard Business Press, 2009), explain that when solving a technical problem “the solution falls within the range of current problem solving expertise.” The problem is clearly defined and there are known solutions. The goal then is to “apply the right person or tool to the problem to create right solution.” In essence, the problem “can be fixed by applying existing skills, resources and processes.”
An adaptive problem, or what is often called an “adaptive challenge,” notes the above authors, is one that “requires a new perspective, expertise, and solutions, lest the organization decline.” The challenge to solving this kind of problem is that “defining the problem may require learning,” and “calls into question fundamental assumptions and beliefs.” Furthermore, an adaptive problem “can only be addressed through changes in people’s priorities, beliefs, habits and loyalties.” In short, it “requires new ways of thinking.”
The second words that need to be defined are complicated and complex. Complicated change requires expertise, planning, execution, effort, and the tracking of key performance indicators or metrics. The result is a series of predictable outcomes. For example, a car is a complicated machine. An expert mechanic can figure out a problem with it, take it a part, and reassemble it without changing much except the broken part. The car is static and the whole is the sum of its parts.
On the other hand, complex change also requires expertise, planning, execution, effort, and the tracking of key performance indicators or metrics. However, the result is an unpredictable outcome, because when things are complex, they also are constantly changing or as some people say “dynamic.” For example, a Brazilian rainforest is complex. The rainforest is in constant flux and the weather patterns are always changing. At the same time, the animal species change or can go extinct. Next, local agriculture impacts the water moving through the rain forest. Thus, the whole is far more than the sum of its parts. And most of what we understand about the rainforest, we understand in retrospect. In short, complexity makes problem solving and execution more difficult. And given current events, we are dealing with more and more complex organizational changes and complex market conditions.
The third words that need to be defined are operational leadership, or often called management, and strategic leadership. Joel Kurtzman in his book, Common Purpose: How Great Leaders Get Organizations to Achieve The Extraordinary (Jossey-Bass 2010), is one of the best places to turn to when explaining the difference. As he writes, “Strategic leaders are people within organizations who plot the course... Strategic leaders generally can think far into the future...The best of these people understand where the future is going and how to get there.” He continues by explaining that “The role of operational leaders is quite different from those of strategic leaders. Operational leaders make certain the trains run on time, the manufacturing processes are adequate, the logistics systems work, the technicians are well trained, and the the trucks are where they are supposed to be.... like strategic leaders, operational leaders are vital to an organization’s success.”
The fourth word that needs to be defined is capacity. This is a tricky word and it is used often in the world of leadership and organizational change. The dictionary defines the word, capacity, with two very different definitions, namely “the potential or suitability for holding, storing, or accommodating” and “the facility or power to produce, perform, or deploy.” Having spent decades teaching leadership and organizational change, I have often pointed out to students that the word capacity has a dual meaning. One definition is about how people think, i.e. “the potential or suitability for holding, storing, or accommodating.” The second definition is about how they work, i.e. ““the facility or power to produce, perform, or deploy.” It is critical then that when we use the word, we be clear about whether we are speaking about thinking or executing.
Furthermore, when it comes to dealing with complexity and adaptive problems, we need to understanding that the capacity to plan does not always translate into the capacity to execute. Each requires a unique skill set. Margaret Wheatley in her book, Margaret J. Finding Our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Time (Berrett-Koehler, 2005) notes that “All change results from a change in meaning.” From my vantage point, the first change to make is to be sure we all hold the same meaning and understanding of key words as we determine what is the best course of action at the local and/or corporate levels when dealing with complexity and dynamic local market conditions.
No comments:
Post a Comment