Create Clarity of Intention
Along with engaging in an in-depth dialogue about routes and destinations, we need to broaden our perspective by exploring the writings of former secretary of defense, and retired Marine Corps four-star general, Jim Mattis and Bing West in their book, Call Sign Chaos: Learning To Lead (Random House, 2019). As they writes: “My early years with my Marines taught me leadership fundamentals, summed up in the three Cs - competence, caring, [and] conviction…. If you as the commander define the mission as your responsibility, you have already failed. It was our mission, never my mission.”
Now, within the military, a mission is defined as a specific task or duty given to an armed force to reach a specific goal, such as attack, defense, or help. In the business world, mission is defined as the core purpose of the organization or company. It states what the company offers it’s customers and what sets it apart from other organizations. This is one of the problems that military people and business people have with any discussion or use of the word mission. Each hold it to be vitally important, and each are using a fundamentally different definition and reference point about it.
When it comes to the subject of paradoxical complexity, I would translate Mattis and Bing’s previous statements about the word “mission” and frame it up as a goal, which is a common framework in both worlds, e.g. if you as the leader define the goal as your responsibility, you have already failed. It was always our goal, never my goal.
Mattis and West continue: “I was taught to use the concept of ‘command and feedback.’ You don’t control your subordinate commanders’ every move; you clearly state your intent and unleash their initiative…. Business management books often stress ‘centralized planning and decentralized execution.’ That is too top-down for my taste. I believe in a centralized vision, coupled with decentralized planning and execution.”
From my perspective and experience, Mattis and West offer a unique and important insight when it comes to dealing with the issue of unpredictability and complexity, namely the importance of stating your intention as a leader. As he writes, “Commander’s intent…. Intent must accomplish the mission [translate this to the word goal in the business world], it has to be achievable, it must be clearly understood, and at the end of the day, it has to deliver what the unit was tasked with achieving.” Thus, Mattis taught his people to say,“Sir, here’s the issue. What’s your intent?” And then he could restate his intent and focus on creating a “coequal ownership of the mission.”
This perspective reminds me of the work by Jim Belasco and Ralph Stayer in their book, Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring To Excellence, Learning to Let Employees Lead (Time Warner, 1994). As they write, “The primary purpose of strategic planning is not to strategically plan for the future, although that's an important purpose of the exercise. It is primarily to develop the strategic management mind-set in each and every individual in the organization. The purpose of the process is not only to produce a plan. It is to produce a plan that will be owned and understood by the people who have to execute it.”
When confronting a paradoxical complexity, or attempting to prevent one from occurring, clarity of intention and creating a system that is owned and understood by the people who have to use it mission-critical to success. But, in the beginning, it starts with the three Cs: competence, caring, and conviction. Effective leadership is built on this foundation, no what the situation or the problem.
Balancing Contradictory Forces
In the end, leaders who are dealing with paradoxical complexity need to balance the contradictory forces of stability vs adaptability. They also have to search for new and better ways to serve their communities, plus extend hospitality to all their employees in such a way that all feel welcome and ready to engage in the challenges related to unpredictability and complexity.
As Albert Einstein reminds us, “We cannot solve problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” I would add to his insight by saying that no system can adapt to complexity without a profound and in-depth understanding of the difference between something being complicated and something being complex. Furthermore, once this necessary shift in understanding has taken place, all involved need to explore the problem using the metaphor of routes and destinations as a framework for dialogue and problem solving. They also need to be clear about their goal and intention before, during, and after this process. Finally, they need to create a solution and system that is owned and understood by the people who have to use it.
Times of unpredictability and complexity are not going away anytime soon. Challenges abound, and people are worn by the magnitude and pace of change. Nevertheless, we can make smart choices and decisions if we have the tools, the perspective, and the understanding to focus on the “Genius of the AND,” rather than the “Tyranny of the OR.”
© Geery Howe 2026
No comments:
Post a Comment