It’s Time To Explore Strategy In A New Way

It was a breakfast meeting and I was being brought up to speed about a diversity of fast moving changes taking place through out the company. Some fell into the categories of people and structure. Others related to systems and culture. All were being influenced by both major internal and external factors. 

As part of this update, he outlined how current events had direct line of sight to strategic decisions made 8-9 years ago. He also noted that subsequent decisions during the intervening years had given rise to many technical problems within specific systems, and how certain teams had begun to become operationally inefficient and dysfunctional. 

I was impressed by this summary, because it is rare to encounter someone who could summarize the big picture in a concise manner, and notice the primary and secondary impacts of past and current decisions. 

Then, he asked me a question: “So, given all of this, what should we do?”

Now, the standard answer would be to engage in one of three things.  First, many would default to creating a new strategic plan. Others would see this as a people issue, and coach certain people in, or out of the organization in order to create more focus. Finally, there are some who would say this all reflects a systems and process problem, and begin an in-depth analysis, which would lead to a redesign of core systems. And for the most part, these are all viable and reasonable options. 

However, I suggested a different pathway, namely it was time to gather people together in small, in-person meetings for a combination of inter-strategic dialogues, and intra-strategic dialogues. The former is to bring people together from different teams and divisions to explore some key questions. The later is to gather people who are on the same team, and to explore the same key questions. Once both groups had gathered, the subject that needed to be explored was strategy.

Now, classically, these kinds of inter and intra meetings would revolve around two key questions. The first is “What is our strategy as an organization?” . The second is “Do you understand our strategy?”. And lots of time and energy could be devoted to answering these two big questions. And yet, experience tells me that this only shifts awareness a little bit, because strategy ends up being nebulous, academic, or highly abstract. 

So, over breakfast, I proposed a new question: “How do you experience or encounter our strategy on a daily basis?” The question invites participants to look for strategy within daily operations. Rather than focusing on the what or why elements related to strategy, the questions asks all involved about how they are translating strategy into actionable experiences, or choices on a daily basis. It shifts the leader from the doer who fixes all problems to a leader who sees, supports and builds on right actions that are in alignment with strategy. 

While this is a subtle shift, it is nonetheless a powerful shift. It recognizes that the primary purpose of having a strategy is to guide the organization through challenging times, and to develop and support a strategic management mindset in each and every person in the organization. In it’s most basic form, the goal of strategy is to have one that is owned and understood by the people who have to execute it. Then, the what and the why can be translated into the how.

As we wrapped up our breakfast meeting, and each headed out the door, we both were smiling. A new perspective had been created. A new beginning was about to take place. It was time again to explore strategy in a whole new way. 

© Geery Howe 2026

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Choosing Phronesis - part #3

Recognize The Relationship Between the Outer and Inner Experience

Third, leaders need to recognize the relationship between their outer, social and positional roles at work, and their own inner, personal journey as it pertains to meaning and purpose. Currently, so many people now are living a highly fragmented life, and suffering from the paradox of success. At work, they are achieving, or attempting to achieve external markers of success, and, at the same time, they are failing to experience any sustainable level of inner fulfillment or meaning to it all. In short, their winning at work and loosing at life, especially at home. 

When this level of internal emptiness occurs, people need to recognize that doing more, and taking on more is not going to change the emptiness. They also need to recognize that they suffer from an achievement addiction, which has a hidden and destructive cost. Leadership consultant John O’Neil in his book, The Paradox of Success: When Winning at Work Means Losing at Life (Penguin Random House, 1994), explains that the positive traits of dedication and perseverance can turn into workaholism, which has a high cost to one’s professional success, and to one’s personal life. 

For me, this is why we need to choose phronesis, which begins with finding a new balance between action and reflection. It also includes a recognition of the need for community outside of work, which can generate perspective and support. This, in combination with the need for solitude and introspection, can generate a new level of internal balancing and healing. As leadership and business strategist, Greg McKeown reminds us, “Whatever has happened to you in life. Whatever hardship. Whatever pain…. They pale in comparison to the power you have to choose what to do now.” And now is the time to choose a healthy inner life journey and a healthy outer life experience in order to create and maintain a good life.

Find A Place To Stand

Ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes said, “Give me a lever long enough, and a place to stand, and I will move the earth.”  When we choose phronesis, we are seeking both the lever and a place to stand in order to move the world from hubris to clarity.  The first step in the entire process begins by offering respect and hospitality to all we meet. We also need to understand the difference between narrative and interpretation. Finally, we need to recognize the relationship between our inner and outer experiences. 

As we focus on these three actions with conviction and courage, we come to understand what author and educator, Parker Palmer was saying when he wrote that the “heart in its ancient sense, [is] the place where intellect and emotion and spirit and will converge in the human self.” Utilizing the aforementioned heart skills during a time of discontinuity will always place us on solid ground and always provide us a lever to change the world. And clearly, this is what is needed at this time period. 

© Geery Howe 2026

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Choosing Phronesis - part #2

Offer Respect And Hospitality

First, leaders need to offer respect and hospitality to all they meet. In our fragmented society, bombarded by unrealistic expectations about work and life, many people find they are locked in a conflict between their inner beliefs and their outward lives. The result is a complete loss of empathy and compassion. 

When we are caught in a pattern of fracture and disconnect, we rarely turn to respect and hospitality as a solution. We don’t think it is a good choice. And yet, I believe we need to rethink this decision, and focus on this course of action. 

Years ago, I remember meeting with a CEO who was going to fire someone on his team. As our meeting ended, and the head of HR came into the room, the CEO said to the head of HR, “Whatever happens in the next meeting, let’s be respectful of their service to the company, and maintain their dignity throughout the entire process.” I just smiled as I headed out the door, because this was an impressive moment of clarity. 

Furthermore, having traveled for 35+ years, I have witnessed my fair share of hospitality. Some locations were friendly, and others were generous and treated me like a guest. But the best hotels, and the best companies went one step further. They made me feel comfortable and valued, safe and welcomed. For at it’s core, hospitality happens when we make connections based on respect, kindness, and care. When this happens consistently over time, good will is generated, and this makes a profound difference during times of constant change. 

Understand The Difference Between Narrative And Interpretation

Second, leaders need to understand the difference between narrative and interpretation. Narrative is a structured accounting of events before one can make sense of one’s experiences. On the other hand, interpretation is the action of explaining the meaning of something like a series of connected events. It also is the act of explaining, reframing, or otherwise showing your understanding of something. 

One element of this understanding involves discerning the difference between knowledge and opinion about the events that took place, or are taking place. Many times, senior leaders get second hand, or even third hand information or reports of actual events. At this point, it is hard, at times, to tell the difference between the narrative and the interpretation, because the person reporting may or may not have the full knowledge of what happened, or the technical expertise to explain what happened. Therefore, they may report their opinion or interpretation, and consider it a factual narrative or explanation. 

I have encountered this many times. For example, having worked with banks and bankers for 30+ years, and facilitated many meetings and strategic planning sessions with them, I would routinely get asked for an analysis of certain key data. At this point, I had to remind all involved that I am not a banker, and I have not gone to banking school. I can give my perspective, i.e. interpretation or opinion based on my understanding and experience, but I can not provide an analysis of critical information about the data or the actual events that generated the data. 

When I pointed this out, many senior banking executives thanked me publicly and privately for understanding the difference between being a banker and working with bankers. For me, it all comes down to knowing the difference between knowledge, narrative, interpretation, and opinion. 

To be continued on Wednesday. 

© Geery Howe 2026

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Choosing Phronesis - part #1

Introduction

In 1969, management consultant, educator and author, widely known as the the father of modern management, Peter Drucker wrote a book called The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society (Harper & Row, 1969). In the book, he describes how major shifts in technology and globalization were transforming modern society at an exponential rate. In particular, he said we were entering a period of disruption and discontinuity in which the structure and meaning of our economy, politics, and society would be radically altered, and that the historic linear progression of things would no longer apply. Fifty-seven years later, Drucker’s analysis is still applicable, if not more relevant than ever.

Currently, I believe many people in leadership positions can say that the age of discontinuity is still happening. For them, the world feels too volatile, complex, and ambiguous. And in the midst of it all, they are seeking a path forward that will create some sense of security, continuity, and predictability.

Watch Our For Hubris

Nevertheless, there are some leaders who believe they are doing just fine, if not better than fine. They believe they have figured out what to do and how to proceed, no matter what is happening in the larger context. When I meet these people, I am reminded of Jim Collins and his book, How The Mighty Fall and Why Some Companies Never Give In (HarperCollins, 2009). As he writes, “Great enterprises can become insulated by success; accumulated momentum can carry an enterprise forward, for a while, even if leaders make poor decisions or lose discipline. Stage 1 [Hubris Born of Success] kicks in when people become arrogant, regarding success virtually as an entitlement, and they loose sight of the true underlying factors that created success in the first place.” And as Greek mythology pointed out so long ago, hubris, i.e. excessive pride, always brings down a hero. I would add the same for “great enterprises.” 

Collins notes that the markers for Stage 1 are the following: “success, entitlement, arrogance; success is viewed as ‘deserved,’ rather than fortuitous, fleeting, or even hard earned. On the face of daunting odds, people begin to believe that success will continue almost no matter what the organization decides to do, or not to do.” 

Collins also notes that the hubris born of success happens when the company neglects their primary flywheel, i.e. when “what” replaces “why”, and the rhetoric of success replaces understanding “why.” Furthermore, it takes place when there is a decline in a learning orientation, specifically when leaders “lose the inquisitiveness and learning orientation that mark those truly great individuals who, no matter how successful they become, maintain a learning curve as steep as when they first began their careers.” These same leaders discount “the role of luck” as it relates to their success. As he concludes, “our research indicates that organizational decline is largely self-inflicted, and recovery largely within our own control. Note: For more information on the hubris born of success and institutional decline, please read  Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap. . . and Others Don't (HarperBusiness, 2001). 

Make An Important Choice

With all of this in mind, I believe it is time to choose phronesis, which is an ancient Greek word meaning practical wisdom, practical judgement, or prudence. It describes the ability to act rightly, and make good choices in complex, and continually changing situations. Aristotle defined phronesis as a virtue that guides moral action, helping individuals determine the best means to achieve a good life. In simple terms, choosing phronesis involves knowing the right course of action, but also understanding why it is the right choice. 

Given we are in a continued age of discontinuity, and witnessing multiple examples of the hubris born of success, I also believe leaders need to engage the skills of the heart, more than just the mind. This will translate into three specific actions, which, over time, can result in practical wisdom, judgement, and the making of sound choices based on “why” more than “what.” While these are skills of the heart, and often considered very “soft” skills, I believe they are critical to short and long term sustainability in the midst of the current volatility, complexity, and ambiguity.

To be continued on Tuesday. 

© Geery Howe 2026

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Dealing With Paradoxical Complexities - part #3

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

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Dealing With Paradoxical Complexities - part #2

The Difference Between Complicated and Complex

From my perspective, in order to comprehend, and then integrate the Genius of the AND perspective, leaders first must understand the difference between something being complicated vs something that is complex. I note this because I believe that paradoxical complexities often arise due, in part, to leaders framing up a problem as complex and adaptive when in actuality it is just complicated and technical. The outcome of this mistake is that they introduce complexity within a system when the better choice was to actually solve the complicated problem. 

Fundamentally, there are two kinds of market conditions or service environments. i.e. complicated or complex. When a leader is dealing with a complicated situation, it will require a great dealing of planning, expertise, effort, measurement, and tracking of key performance indicators. The result of these actions are predictable outcomes. For example, a car is a complicated machine. An expert mechanic can take it apart, find and repair the problem, and then reassemble it. In simple terms, the car operates as a stable system, and the whole is the sum of its parts.

On the other hand, when a leader is dealing with a complex situation, it also will require a great dealing of planning, expertise, effort, measurement, and tracking of key performance indicators. However, the result of these actions does not always generate predictable outcomes. Instead, they create new outcomes which can not be controlled, but can be influenced through learning and on-going adaptation.  

For example, a Brazilian rainforest is complex, because it is in constant flux. This happens due to constantly changing weather patterns, the continual changes in life cycles of the animals that live within the forest, and the evolving impact of local agriculture which changes soil and water conditions within the forest and around the forest. In short, the whole is far more than the sum of its parts. Therefore, most of what we understand about the rainforest, we understand in retrospect, or in the study of the evolution of long term patterns.

With all of this in mind, we have to recognize that by approaching a complex situation from a complicated mindset, we will only generate more complexity, because the problem solver will think the system is basically stable, i.e the whole is the sum of the parts. However, referencing the earlier example of a business choosing to expand in order to meet an increase in market demand, the internal system will need to move from being stable, i.e. complicated, to one that is complex, namely a system where the new whole is far more than the sum of its past parts. When this shift in perspective does not take place, i.e. working from a complicated situation to a complex situation, the outcome will be the creation of paradoxical complexities that will ultimately stifle the innovation and speed needed to meet the increase in market demand. 

Explore Routes And Destinations

Clearly, given current events, unpredictability and complexity are not going away any time soon. And many leaders and the systems they oversee are going to struggle with this level of unpredictability. This happens in part, because systems are designed to make sure everyone does something the same way every time. We call this SOP, namely standard operating procedure. 

One difficulty with SOP is that people do not like their actions to be standardized, because it makes them feel depersonalized. And when this happens during times of unpredictability and complexity, people struggle mightily, and then consistently resist any level of change. As a result, leaders need to figure out how to approach this situation without creating more complexity. Thus, they need to help all involved change the way they are thinking and framing up the challenges related to complexity. 

One way to do this is to frame up systems change through the lens of routes and destinations. A route is a pathway we take to a particular destination. In business, think of a route as a particular system within the company, and the destination as the desired outcome we seek, e.g. to meet an increase in market demand of a particular good or service. 

With this perspective in mind, we then need to ask a series of important questions:

- Are we taking an old route to an old destination, but doing it better?

- Are we taking an old route to a new destination ?

- Are we taking a new route to an old destination?

- Are we taking a new route to a new destination?

Using the routes and destinations metaphor as a vehicle for dialogue and problem solving, we can unlock how to solve the complicated elements within a system, and avoid adding any unnecessary levels of complexity to the travel plans of getting to a new or old destination. 

To be continued on Wednesday.

© Geery Howe 2026

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change

Dealing With Paradoxical Complexities - part #1

The Problem With Complexity

More and more these days, leaders are dealing with paradoxical complexities. This happens when a new solution is created because of an external shift in market conditions. This solution then impacts a particular internal system, thereby generating more complexity rather than less complexity within the system. As a result, leaders struggle with the contradictory forces of wanting stability within the system vs needing to create adaptability within the system. They also are struggling with how to let these two factors co-exist in order to survive these inevitable external changes.

For example, leaders often choose to expand a business in order to meet an increase in market demand for the goods and/or services that the business offers. However, as part of doing this, they introduce highly complex internal processes within a particular system, which ultimately stifles the innovation and speed needed to meet the increased market demand. In short, they create a paradoxical complexity. 

The Impact of Complexity

Over time, three things happen when this takes place. First, complexity ends up being framed as a threat rather than an opportunity to redesign internal systems. This results in leaders defaulting to technical solutions that don’t actually solve the current and emerging adaptive problems normal within complexity.

Second, leaders over-complicate simple technical problems, and avoid dealing with difficult, adaptive problems. They choose to do this, because they want to lower the level of disequilibrium within the company, preserve some form of status quo, or reduce the feeling of chaos created by complexity. They also do this because they want to reduce any questions that may arise in the problem solving process. Rather than applying existing skills, resources, and process to a clearly defined, technical problem, leaders feel obligated to come up with a “new and better” solution, thereby increasing the potential for a greater degree of complexity within internal systems. 

Third, when a difficult, adaptive problem occurs within a known system, many leaders avoid solving the problem, because they want to maintain institutional norms rather than let them be challenged. They themselves also don’t want to engage in new ways of thinking, and to deal with any conflicts that may surface during problem solving. They particularly do not want to call into question any past strategic choices. Thus, by defaulting to technical solutions, they can circumvent actually having to deal with the root of the problem, and instead solve the symptoms that surface because of the problem. In short, the cumulative effect of these three choices is the degradation of the capacity within a system to be reliable, thereby reducing the overall performance of the company. 

A Necessary Shift In Perspective

So, how do we deal with paradoxical complexities?

In the beginning, we must recognize that many front line supervisors and middle managers tend to think the world and it’s related problems into pieces. They break things down, analyze the parts, and come up with a solution. Then, they execute the solution. This reflects a fix it mentality. 

On the other hand, experienced leaders tend to think the world and it’s related problems into pieces, and then they think it all back together again. The goal is to create something that is greater than just the solution to the problem within a particular system. 

The late Stephen Covey called this whole-parts-whole thinking. As he wrote, “Whole-parts-whole thinking empowers us to see relationships and create the connections that lead to growth, contribution, and fulfillment instead of fragmentation, discouragement, and self-focus. It becomes a subconscious way of thinking that empowers us to integrate our lives and weave elements together in a beautiful pattern.” 

I believe experienced leaders do whole-parts-whole thinking by managing the tension between stability and reliability vs flexibility and adaptability. And in order to do that they need to comprehend and embrace the “Genius of the And,” which is the opposite of the “Tyranny of the OR.” 

On October 26, 1994, the book Built To Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies was published by HarperBusiness. It was written by Jim Collins and Jerry Porras, and it outlined the results of a six-year research project conducted at the Stanford Business School in the early 1990’s. The book focused on the question: “What does it take to start and build an enduring great company from the ground up?” The two primary objectives of the research published in this book were to identify the underlying characteristics that were common to highly visionary companies, and to effectively communicate these findings so that they could influence management. Currently, it is considered to be one of the most influential business books of our era.

In the book, Collins and Porras wrote: “.. a key aspect of highly visionary companies: They do not oppress themselves with what we call the “Tyranny of the OR” - the rationale view that cannot easily accept paradox, that cannot live with two seemingly contradictory forces or ideas at the same time. The “Tyranny of the OR” pushes people to believe that things must be either A OR B, but not both.” For example, a leader can focus on change or stability, being bold or conservative, high quality or low cost.

However, as they continue: “Instead of being oppressed by the “Tyranny of the OR,” highly visionary companies liberate themselves with the “Genius of the AND” - the ability to embrace both extremes of a number of dimensions at the same time. Instead of choosing between A OR B, they figure out a way to have both A AND B.” For example, a leader can focus on purpose and profit, a fixed core ideology and vigorous change, a conservative core and opportunistic experimentation. The authors also note the following: “We’re not talking about mere balance here. ‘Balance’ implies going to the midpoint, fifty-fifty, half and half. It seeks to do very well in the short-term and very well in the long-term. A visionary company doesn’t simply balance between idealism and profitability; it seeks to be highly idealistic and highly profitable.”

To be continued on Tuesday.

© Geery Howe 2026

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change