Problem Solving Within Complexity - part #6

Being Prepared And Being Ready

At this point, the poet Mark Nepo offers an important insight into solving problems. As he explains, “Being ready centers on the foundational ground we stand on and the clarity of view we meet a situation with. We often mistake being prepared for being ready, through the process of getting prepared can be the exercise by which we ready ourselves inwardly to meet any situation…. In life and love and in meeting our suffering, we need both - to be prepared and to be ready. To be prepared is to know how to step. To be ready is to see where to step. To be prepared is to know how to pick up what is broken. To be ready is to have a some sense of how the pieces go back together. To be prepared is to make a schedule. To be ready is to lean into the day with an open heart when the schedule is lost in the rain.”

Brene’ Brown in her book, Strong Grounds: The Lessons Of Daring Leadership, The Tenacity Of Paradox, and The Wisdom Of The Human Spirit ( Random House, 2025), writes that “What you’re trying to achieve will require a deep, broad, and disciplined commitment to individual change, team change, and systems change.” Brown continues that a transformation of this natures includes “creating stronger levels of self-awareness, cultural awareness, situational awareness, and anticipatory awareness.”

From my perspective, this level of transformational change involves being well prepared and being ready. Jim Collins and Morten T. Hansen in their book, Great By Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck - Why Some Thrive Despite Them All (HarperCollins, 2011), explain that leaders of companies, who thrive in uncertainty, and even chaos, do something very unique, namely they zoom out before they zoom in. When then sense danger, i.e. situational awareness, they zoom out. They attempt to discern whether or not there are changes in market conditions. When I have seen leaders do this, they attempt to sense and identify these changes as well as try to frame them up and name them in order that others can understand the changes before they mobilize people into a problem solving process, and later action. 

Collins and Hansen point out that the zooming out process is not about seeing the big picture as much as an attempt to understand how the big picture is changing, and if there are particular changes in the service delivery environment. Then, they assess the time frame for action, i.e. anticipatory awareness, asking themselves three important questions: “How much time before the risk profile changes?”, “Do the new conditions call for disrupting plans?”, and “If so, how?”. Then, with the answers in hand, they zoom in, and focus on problem solving and subsequent execution. During this course of action, Collins and Hansen remind us that “Rapid change does not call for abandoning disciplined thought and disciplined action. Rather it calls for upping the intensity to zoom out for fast yet rigorous decision making and zoom in for fast yet superb execution.”

Improve Decision-Making Expertise

For leaders of leaders, this all comes down to improving rigorous decision-making expertise across the management team, and the organization as a whole. Recognizing the aforementioned approach related to situational and anticipatory awareness, leaders need to help people evaluate the time frame within which they must respond to a problem. As part of this work, they need to help others understand that they are often forced to make decisions with incomplete information, and often do not have the time for a formal analysis of options like they did in the past. They also need to help people understand that there will be failures because of this, and that some failures will require an agile response, i.e. being able to be flexible, adaptable and able to quickly respond to changing circumstance and new information. 

Over time, and in order to improve decision-making expertise, leaders also must connect people, who are facing similar complex problems, with other people, and help all involved engage in after action reviews in order help everyone learn from, and improve their decision making. They must celebrate short term wins, smart decision-making, and innovative solutions, too. 

But from my experience and observations, improved and rigorous decision-making can not effectively happen without comprehending, and then embracing the Stockade Paradox. Jim Collins writes about this paradox in his book, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap. . . and Others Don't (HarperBusiness, 2001). The paradox originated from Navy Vice Admiral, James Stockade’s experiences as a POW during the Vietnam War, where he survived years of torture and deprivation by balancing his harsh and painful reality with a strong belief in a better future. As Collins explains, this paradox is based on the ability to “retain absolute faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, AND at the same time confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.” By combining realistic acceptance of current challenges, e.g. we are attempting to solve ever-evolving problems within dynamic complexity, with a stedfast and optimistic outlook, e.g. we can, and we will over time improve our decision-making expertise in the midst of this complexity, will ultimately result in successful solutions. In short, by holding two contradictory truths at the same time, and with the regular coaching and support, leaders can get better at decision-making in the midst of these challenges. 

The Elegant Beauty Of Simplicity

Right now, current events are volatile. Complexity abounds. As a result, people at work and at home are pendulum swinging from fear to hope, and then back to fear, all due to the numerous chaotic situations that are happening around them. 

What we want is to feel less vulnerability, and to experience less uncertainty. What we have come to understand is that these feelings of vulnerability and uncertainty have moved from being episodic to systemic, and the resulting anxiety has become contagious. In short, we are caught in a cycle of intensity and reactivity, all wrapped up in dynamic complexity. 

“The key to complexity,” writes John Paul Lederach, “is finding the elegant beauty of simplicity.” The pathway to this level of simplicity begins with creating an adaptable problem solving process, and to seek a solution, not the solution, recognizing that the problems are evolving faster than the solutions can be created and executed. Next, we must build and maintain healthy teams who work within healthy relational spaces. We also need to focus on building a shared consciousness within our teams and the whole company based on a common identity and a common understanding about who we are, how we work through our challenges. Then, we need to recognize that a truth that influences our feelings can create more change than an in-depth analysis. As we make these important choices over time, all involved will embrace complexity, rather than try to fix complexity. We also need to watch out for grit gaslighting, and to choose empowered execution. 

The search for “finding the elegant beauty of simplicity” requires discipline and commitment on a daily basis. It also requires us to acknowledge our interdependency, and to accept both the constants and the changes of these times. For in the end, the ground level truth of solving problems within complexity is that we have to work with what we are given. And as we do this, we need to remember that respectful engagement, where people move from being anonymous employees to individuals with personal biography and professional skills, needs to be the norm rather than the exception. Then, wise and skillful choices can be made, and realistic and effective solutions can be created, and executed in the midst dynamic complexity.

© Geery Howe 2026

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

Problem Solving Within Complexity - part #5

Choose Empowered Execution

As a shared consciousness is created within a group or team, and as relational spaces are built and maintained for in-depth communication and transparency, we then need to create viable solutions within complexity. However, the challenge is to not just create a solution, but also to execute it in an effective manner, even if it is a temporary solution due to the continued evolution of the problem. This all leads us back to the subject of empowered execution, which is the sum of empowerment and execution. 

Whenever I think about the union of empowerment and execution, I am reminded of a quote by Jim Belasco and Ralph Stayer in their book, Flight of the Buffalo: Soaring To Excellence, Learning to Let Employees Lead (Time Warner, 1994): “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.”

For me, the critical words in the above are “owned and understood by the people who have to execute it.” Creating ownership and understanding, plus a strategic management mindset, are all mission critical to problem solving within complexity. Furthermore, Belasco and Stayer advocate for leaders to “create the environment for ownership where each person wants to be responsible for his/her own performance.” I would add to this the importance of wanting to create an environment where people want their team to be successful, too. This is not going to happen as the result of a singular action, but instead as a result of an ongoing disciplined course of action. It starts with a commitment to build clarity and ownership, not just to create solutions to adaptive challenges.  

The late Stephen Covey understood this when he wrote about the four roles of leadership in his book, The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness (Free Press, 2004). Those four roles are: “modeling (conscience): set a good example; pathfinding (vision): jointly determine the course; aligning (discipline): set up and manage systems to stay on course; empowering (passion): focus talent on results, not methods, then get out of people’s way and give help as requested.” As he explains, “Modeling principle-centered trustworthy behavior inspires trust without ‘talking it.’ Pathfinding creates order without demanding it. Aligning nourishes both vision and empowerment without proclaiming them. Empowerment is the fruit of the other three."

Leadership Choices That Support Empowered Execution

Captain Michael Abrashoff in his book, It’s Your Ship: Management Techniques from the Best Damn Ship in the Navy (Warner Books, 2002) notes that “Empowering means defining the parameters in which people are allowed to operate, and then setting them free.” From my experience and observations, setting people free to execute within defined parameters, starts with understanding something very unique about people who are empowered and execute well over time. 

First, empowered people have confidence in their ability and their knowledge, and in their team and their company. They believe they can make the right decisions, and they believe they are role modeling what is most important.

Second, empowered people can make choices about how to achieve predetermined outcomes/goals. As they make these choices, empowered people believe they are engaged in meaningful work that is making a difference in their work place and their community. 

Over decades of doing this work, I have learned that empowerment is the process of increasing the capacity of individuals or groups/teams to have confidence, to make choices, and to transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes, i.e. meaningful results. In order to make this level of empowered execution become an on-going reality, leaders need to do two things very well. 

First, they must help people to regularly achieve their goals. Teresa M. Amabile and Steve J. Kramer in their article, “The Power of Small Wins” (Harvard Business Review, May 2011), write about their decade of research which included a deep analysis of daily diaries kept by teammates on creative projects. From this research, they discovered The Progress Principle: “Of all things that can boost emotions, motivation, and perceptions during a workday, the single most important is making progress in meaningful work…. And the more frequently people experience that sense of progress, the more likely they are to be creatively productive in the long run.”

Second, these same leaders need to improve their ability to delegate. On the surface, this seems elementary, because delegation is classically defined as “the transferring of authority and responsibility from one person to another in order to carry out a specific activity.” However, within the transferring of authority and responsibility, fundamental flaws are often made that cause failure on many levels. 

Having spent my career as a consultant and executive coach, who was routinely called in to figure out why execution failed, I regularly uncovered a series of common problems within the delegation process. First, the person who was being delegated to did not understand the problem that they were suppose to solve. Remember awareness of a problem is not the same as understanding a problem. Second, the person who was being delegated to did not have the positional authority to execute a successful course of action. In essence, the combination of the aforementioned two things resulted in commitment without understanding, and responsibility without choice. Third, the person who was being delegated to did not know how to measure progress and/or success. This always resulted in a decline of confidence and a lack willingness to take any risks in the course of action to solve the problem they were supposed to solve. Instead, most people just gave up, and dumped the whole problem back on their boss, the one who delegated it to them in the first place. 

But, I don’t fault the person who has been delegated to in this situation. For me, this is a leadership problem, not just a delegation problem. Many years ago, John Maxwell in his book, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow them and People Will Follow You (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), wrote about “The Law of Empowerment: Only secure leaders give power to others.” Yet, I have discovered that ineffective, and often insecure leaders delegate the work, but not the ability to make choices, and rarely the parameters for action. In short, the leader chooses a conquer and control form of delegation rather than a connections and clarity form of delegation. And as a result, the former generates a profound level of personal burn-out and cynicism about problem solving, delegation, and change. However, the later generates commitment and collaboration. As Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan in their book, Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done (Crown Business, 2002), wrote “execution is a systematic process of rigorously discussing hows and what’s questioning, tenaciously following through, and ensuring accountability.” It also is “a systematic way of exposing reality and acting upon it.” And this is one fundamental difference between leaders who solve problems within complexity, and those attempt to solve problems and only generate more problems. 

To be continued on Wednesday. 

© Geery Howe 2026

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

Problem Solving Within Complexity - part #4

The Ability to Embrace the Problem And The Solution

Yet, in the beginning, all of this boils down to leaders making choices that are not easy or simple. And one of these choices is that they need to embrace the problem defining process, and the solution creating process. When I think about how hard this is, I am reminded of the work of Jim Collins and Jerry Porras in their book, Built To Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies (HarperBusiness, 1994). Here, the authors introduce a key concept called the “Genius Of The And.” As they 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, many companies and their leaders think one can only embrace change or stability, being bold or conservative, high quality or low cost. They do not believe both can be done at the same time. 

However, Colins and Porras note that visionary companies, and I would argue visionary leaders, do something different. “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.” Therefore, they embrace purpose and profit, a fixed core ideology and vigorous change, having a conservative core and an opportunistic experimentation mindset. As they continue, “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.”

When I reflect on what they wrote, I am reminded that a leader, who is attempting to solve problems within complexity, must have a unique mindset and skill set. In particular, they must have the capacity to plan and to execute at the technical, adaptive and social levels within a group setting. They also must comprehend the difference between solving operational problems, and working through strategic level, adaptive challenges. In short, they need to embrace complexity, not fix complexity. 

Watch Out For Grit Gaslighting

Now, some will argue that mental fortitude is the key to embracing complexity. However, Tasha Eurich in her book, Shatterproof: How to Thrive in a World of Constant Chaos (And why resilience alone isn’t enough) (Little, Brown Spark, 2025), writes that “… if mental fortitude is indeed wholly learnable, as many self-help authors argue, if we fall short, it means we just didn’t try hard enough.” She continues “… grit gaslighting, a common phenomena, where, instead of validating our stress or distress, our commitment to coping with it is questioned. Often, grit gaslighting comes from people in positions of authority or well-meaning but unaware family and friends.” She notes that often “several factors outside our control make it difficult to stay resilient, especially under stress.” 

Recently, I have met many leaders who are struggling as they attempt to problem solve within complexity. They believe that if they could just try harder they could be successful. This also is reinforced by others at work and at home. The outcome is a lack of self-confidence in their ability to do the work, and to lead others through the work. Yet, I think all of us are missing something important when we end up in the land of grit gaslighting. 

Tasha Eurich’s research in the aforementioned book points out that under stressful times, we need three things to thrive. She calls them the “three-to-thrive” factors.  As she writes, “The first three-to-thrive need is confidence: the belief that we’re effective in our actions, capable of achieving our goals, and able to grow and learn new things. The second three-to-thrive need is choice, means feeling free to function without pressure or threat, acting with agency and integrity, staying true to ourselves. The final need is connection, the sense that we belong, get along with others, and experience mutual closeness and support.” She continues, “Fundamentally, confidence keep us growing, choice keeps us authentic, and connection keeps us together.”

As I reflect on the leaders I know who are making progress in the midst of these challenging situations and helping their teams do likewise, I know that, on the back side, they routinely prioritize confidence, connection, and choice in order to start from a foundation that is greater than just resilience. They recognize that in order to be a better leader, they have to become better people, referencing the work of executive coach Kevin Cashman. They also recognize the truth of this short statement made by Eurich: “When you get better, everyone benefits.” And for these individuals, they are committed to life long learning, be it at the personal level or the professional level. They want to get better, and over time, they do get better. 

To be continued on Tuesday. 

© Geery Howe 2026

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

Problem Solving Within Complexity - part #3

A Truth That Influences Their Feelings 

Jim Collins and Morten T. Hansen in their book, Great By Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck - Why Some Thrive Despite Them All (HarperCollins, 2011), write “We cannot predict the future. But we can create it.” However, they note that in order to do this we need to begin now, and work on it routinely over time. As they note, “It’s what you do before the storm hits - the decisions and disciplines and buffers and shock absorbers already in place - that matters most in determining whether your enterprise pulls ahead, falls behind or dies when the storm hits.” Given the current “storms,” we should have begun preparing for them years ago. Still, all is not lost or hopeless. We can start now, and move forward step by step, clarifying who we are, i.e. defining our mission/common identity, and our common understanding/core values about who we work as one team. 

As we create this level of clarity and understanding, I am reminded of something John Kotter wrote about in his book, The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations (Harvard Business School Press, 2002). “The single most important message in this book is very simple,” writes Kotter. “People change what they do less because they are given analysis that shifts their thinking than because they are shown a truth that influences their feelings.” He then notes that “The flow of see-feel-change is more powerful than that of analysis-think-change.” He recommends that “... those who are most successful at significant change begin their work by creating a sense of urgency among relevant people.”

In order to increase this level of urgency, and from my perspective in order to increase the focus on working to make change successful at the group level, rather than just at the individual level, Kotter suggests we do two things. First, show “others the need for change with a compelling object that they can actually see, touch, and feel.” Second, show “people valid and dramatic evidence from outside the organization that demonstrates that change is required.” Kotter does not advocate on “focusing exclusively on building a ‘rational’ business case, getting top management approval, and racing ahead while mostly ignoring all the feelings that are blocking change.” He comprehends that feelings may not always be a true perception of reality, but they are, nevertheless, what are causing people to think and work in specific ways. 

Yet, as we focus on showing a truth that influences peoples’ feelings, which we hope will result in an increased level of urgency, we need to acknowledge that many people and organizations are quite content with status quo. John Kotter in his book, A Sense of Urgency (Harvard Press, 2008), writes “complacency is much more common than we might think and very often invisible to the people involved.” He continues by explaining that “the opposite of urgency is not only complacency. It’s also a false or misguided sense of urgency that is as prevalent today as complacency itself and more insidious. With a false sense of urgency, an organization does not have a great deal of energized action, but it’s driven by anxiety, anger, and frustration, and not a focused determination to win, and win as soon as is reasonably possible.”

From my experience and observations, complacency, anxiety, anger and frustration are running rampant right now at all levels of society and within many different organizations. This is especially true when attempting to solve problems within complexity. Therefore, leaders need to make an important choice. As Margaret Wheatley in her book, Restoring Sanity: Practices to Awaken Generosity, Creativity, & Kindness in Ourselves and Our Organizations (Berrett-Koehler, 2024), explains: “We change from acting and learning from our actions. We act, learn, and discover what works. Most of us know this is the best process, but we don’t do it. We have enough time to learn - we just keep digging ourselves deeper into the hole of ignorance and failure.” And for me, this is the key, namely to understand that urgency and change happen when we learn from our actions, and create networks of allies and confidants who can help us in this learning process. Then, the flow of see-feel-change becomes grounded in reality, and the subsequent urgency that comes from this grounding is focused and effective. 

The Path To Building Commitment And Advocacy

Increasing urgency over time, and convincing a group that a new collective consciousness is necessary in order to be effective is big work. But from my professional experiences and observations, I think there is a parallel track to this work that is not often recognized or valued, and yet is very important for the former to take place. 

Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall in their book, Nine Lies About Work: A Freethinking Leader’s Guide to the Real World (Harvard Business Review Press, 2019), write: “Instead of cascading goals, instead of cascading instructions for actions, we should cascade meaning and purpose. It is shared meaning that creates alignment, and this alignment is emergent, not coerced. Whereas cascaded goals are a control mechanism, cascaded meaning is a release mechanism…. Our people don’t need to be told what to do; they want to be told why.” 

It is clarity about the why factor in combination with the urgency factor, i.e. that business as usual is no longer acceptable and is actually dangerous, if not detrimental to the whole of the company, that will generate clarity that is emergent. When solving problems within complexity, I believe the goal should not just be the action of solving the problems before us. Instead, it should be to build action based on commitment and shared advocacy for action. When a team is willing to participate in change, and when there is a recognition that the work of change is meaningful and important, this level of commitment transforms people’s thinking at the individual and team level. And one powerful outcome of this level of commitment is that all involved tend to publicly recommend and support the action. In short, they promote and advocate for the changes that need to take place, i.e. they are champions for the process and outcome of change. 

To be continued next Monday. 

© Geery Howe 2026

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

Problem Solving Within Complexity - part #2

Creating Agility In The Face Of Strategic Ambiguity

Many years ago, renowned business consultant, Richard Tanner Pascale in his article, “Laws of the Jungle and the New Laws of Business” (Leader to Leader, Spring 2001), wrote that “Two imperatives govern survival in many industries today. The first requires agility in the face of high levels of strategic ambiguity. The second is a shift in culture and capability from slow, deliberate organizations to forms that behave like living organisms, fostering entrepreneurial initiatives, consolidating learning and moving rapidly to exploit winning positions in the marketplace.” While this may have been written 25 years ago, it is still true today. Given current events, our leadership challenge is to translate these two imperatives into concrete and practical applications.

For this, I turn to the work of Richard Pascale, Mark Millemann and Linda Gioja and their book: Surfing The Edge of Chaos: The Laws of Nature and the New Laws of Business (Three Rivers Press, 2000). As they write, “Over many millions of years, nature has devised strategies for coping with prolonged periods of gradual change and occasional cataclysms in which only the most agile survive.” During times of turmoil, they note that “Equilibrium is a precursor to death…. When a living system is in a state of equilibrium, it is less responsive to changes occurring around it. This places it at maximum risk.” The authors then go on to explain the Law of Requisite Variety, which states that the “survival of any organism depends on its capacity to cultivate (not just tolerate) variety in its internal structure…. Failure to do so leads to an inability to cope successfully with variety when it is introduced from outside.”

One example of this from the book is the difference between a fish raised in a bowl and one that has grown up in the sea. The former swims, breeds, and obtains food with minimal effort due to there being no predators. As a result, these fish are very sensitive to the slightest disturbances. The later has worked hard to sustain themselves. They have had to evade many threats, and cope with much variation. Therefore, they are robust when faced with change.

Now, Pascale, Millemann and Goja recognize that the notion of equilibrium as a precursor of death or disaster “must be assessed in the context of scale and time.” As they explain, on the small scale and short time basis, equilibrium is desirable. However, on the large scale, long time basis, equilibrium is hazardous, because the environment is always changing. They explain that prolonged equilibrium dulls an organization “to arouse itself appropriately in the face of danger.” And given what we are experiencing right now, large scale and long time equilibrium can be disastrous and dangerous on many different levels. 

The Symmetry Of Shared Consciousness

General Stanley McChrystal with Tantum Collins, David Silverman and Chris Fussell understood this perspective when they wrote the book, Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement For A Complex World (Portfolio/Penguin, 2015). General McChrystal  is known for his command of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) from 2003 to 2008 during which his organization was credited with the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). In the book, he wrote that in 2004 AQI “looked on the surface like a traditional insurgency. But under the surface it operated unlike anything we had seen before. In place of a traditional hierarchy, it took the form of a dispersed network that proved devastatingly effective against our objectively more qualified force.” As he explained, “AQI’s unorthodox structure allowed it to thrive in an operating environment that diverged radically from those we had traditionally faced: the twenty-first century is more connected, faster paced, and less predictable than previous eras. Though we encountered this shift on the battlefield, similar changes are affecting almost every sector of society.”

Recognizing this profound change in their operating environment, he explains that in order to win, JSOC had to change. “Surprisingly, that change was less about tactics or new technology than it was about internal architecture and culture of our force - in other words, our approach to management…. Our Task Force’s structure and culture of disciplined, stratified reductionism had its roots deep in military organizational history…. This organizational culture is not unique to the military; since the Industrial Revolution, most industries have subscribed to management doctrines informed by or similar to Frederick Taylor’s ‘Scientific Management,’ a system that is excellent for achieving highly efficient execution of known, repeatable processes at scale…. We were realizing in 2004 that despite the success of this approach throughout the 20th century, it had its limits. Like the Maginot Line, it was insufficient for tackling a new generation of threats. Efficiency is no longer enough.” In short, JSOC came to understand that they were working in a fast-paced world with a higher degree of interdependence, all of which was creating complexity. 

Over time, McChrystal and his team learned that “Complexity produces a fundamentally different situation from the complicated challenges of the past; complicated problems required great effort, but ultimately yielded to prediction. Complexity means that, in spite of our increase abilities to track and measure, the world has become, in many ways, vastly less predictable…. This unpredictability is fundamentally incompatible with reductionist managerial models based around planning and prediction. The new environment demands a new approach.” 

And for me, here is the essence of what they learned, and is the key message of their book: “At the core of the Task Force’s journey to adaptability lay a yin-and-yang symmetry of shared consciousness, achieved through strict, centralized forums for communication and extreme transparency, and empowered execution, which involved the decentralization of managerial authority. Together, these powered our Task Force; neither would suffice alone.”

Building A Common Identity And A Common Understanding

There is so much to unpack in the previous paragraph. I think the best place to start, when it comes to problem solving within complexity, is to focus on “shared consciousness, achieved through strict, centralized forums for communication.”

First, we must remember this famous quote, often attributed to Albert Einstein: “We cannot solve problems at the same level of thinking that we were at when we created those problems.” This implies that in order to find a solution or a greater understanding or perspective, a new level of “consciousness,” i.e. a new way of thinking, is required which transcends the limitations of the original thinking that caused the problem in the first place. 

Once we comprehend this huge insight, the difficulty, when dealing with problem solving within complexity, is that we have a convergence of two different things happening at the same time. First, at this time period, the reason why problem solving needs to take place is not being caused primarily by our actions, but instead by other people’s choices. Thus, we had to respond and solve a problem they created. Second, the consciousness we need to have in order to solve the problem they created, is going to require a shift in our shared consciousness, not just at the individual level of thinking and effort. So, with both of these elements in mind, we, as leaders, are challenged to change our own individual  consciousness as much as the group’s shared consciousness. This is a magnitude of personal and organizational change that is vastly more difficult than just attempting to change one person’s mind. Now, we are changing how a group thinks. 

Martine Haas and Mark Mortensen in their article called “The Secrets of Great Teamwork” (Harvard Business Review, June 2016) write about the importance of a “shared mindset” as one key element in creating great teamwork. As they explain,“Distance and diversity, as well as digital communication and changing membership, make them [teams] especially prone to the problems of “us versus them” thinking and incomplete information…. The solution to both is developing a shared mindset among team members - something team leaders can do by fostering a common identity and common understanding.” And in one short sentence, they unlock a key part of the solution, namely building a common identity and a common understanding. However, we need to recognize that this does not happen overnight. 

To be continued on Wednesday. 

© Geery Howe 2026

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