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

The Emerging Challenge Of Leadership - part #2

Create Clarity Of Intention

Along with this, many leaders focus their attention on all the problems around them. However, what they miss is whether or not they are clear about their intention in the problem solving process. Clear intention should always precede problem solving. 

When coaching someone who is experiencing a full bandwidth, and trying to solve problems plus keep their eye on the ever-evolving big picture, I ask them: “What is your intention in this situation?” Most just look at me for a long minute, and then respond: “I am just trying to fix it all.” Some will respond by saying “I am just trying to get caught up,” or “I don’t know.”

The problem here is that their fundamental belief about leadership is based on three myths. First, the leader’s job is to come up with all the answers. Second, the leader’s job is to fix everything. Third, the leader’s job is to make sure you get everything done before you rest. These leadership myths have created a significant amount of pain, fear, and loss, because they are totally unrealistic on so many levels. 

Instead, we need to help ourselves and others clarify our intentions plus rebuild our faith and trust in ourselves and others. We also need to realize that the world will always be changing, and the strategy of the company may not always be able to keep up with unforeseen variables that surface due to this change. 

And, at the same time, we need to accept the fact that most leaders are afraid of change, because they fear the messiness and unknown nature that comes with it. They also fear the judgement of others, and the feeling of losing control around all that is happening. If they recognize these factors and understand that they are normal, even if they do not like them, they will always handle everything better if they stand on a foundation of clear intention, faith, and trust in themselves and others to figure out what to do next, and how to move forward. 

Build A Framework of Acceptance And Commitment

Second, having a framework of acceptance and commitment makes a major difference when our bandwidth is full and overflowing. In the beginning, we need to recognize that “acceptance is the answer to all my problems,” as Alcoholics Anonymous so wisely reminds us. To gain a greater understanding of this perspective, we must turn to The Serenity Prayer, which was originally written by the American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. As it states, “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” There are days now when I wish people would start each day reciting this prayer in order to remind themselves of how to respond, and cope with all the problems and issues that swirl around them each and every day. 

Along with a clear perspective on acceptance, I also think we need to explore what are our commitments when we are feeling overwhelmed. As John Adams once wrote, “There are 2 kinds of people, those who make commitments and those who keep commitments.” From my vantage point, I think there is a third kind of person, namely one who routinely reviews their commitments in order that they can maintain them in a healthy and effective manner. When we review our commitments and re-commit to them, we build a new way of leading in the midst of all that is happening.

Nevertheless, Margaret Wheatley reminds us of something very important. As she explains, “We know we are an island surrounded by seas of increasing turbulence, tsunamis that suddenly wipe out years of good work and destroy possibility. We know that we have no control over these forces, and so we gather together and build an island. The strongest protection is our shared identity and our commitment to norms and practices that nourish the human spirit.” 

When we choose to nourish the human spirit, our own and others, we must remember the advice of the late, Richard Farson: “People can make lasting changes in themselves only though a commitment to continuing discipline…. Lasting change comes only from the adoption of sound management principles that are practiced on a continuing basis. There are no quick fixes.” And this is the hardest part of all, because we live in a society that is addicted to quick fixes and instant gratification more than the work of discipline and commitment. 

The Problem of Living A Divided Life

Third, the other problem we experience when our bandwidth is full is that we end up living a divided life. Rather than pursuing a path of integration and wholeness, we instead default to a pathway of fragmented and transactional living and working. We often do this in the hopes of meeting needs, priorities, and expectations of others. 

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), notes that we need three things in order to thrive. As she explains, “The first three-to-thrive need is confidence: the belief that we’re effective in our actions, capable of achieving out goals, and able to grow and learn new things. The second three-to-thrive need is choice, which 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…. Fundamentally, confidence keep us growing, choice keeps us authentic, and connection keeps us together.”

I think the challenge of a divided life is that we have lost the memory and the experience of living and working from a place of confidence, choice, and connection. And with a full bandwidth, we end up wandering in the land of self-doubt, constant pressure, and loneliness when what we truly want are the feelings of competence, authenticity, and love. 

Now, people, who realize that they are living a divided life, often want a singular solution to solve this problem. While I wish I had one, I do believe there is a three-fold pathway to creating a unified life. First, I believe we need to engage regularly with mentors and elders, because they can offer perspective, insights, and ask wonderful questions that we would not normally ask ourselves. Second, I believe we need to create or find a circle of trust so we can share freely and openly about life’s challenges. This helps us process what is happening and helps to remember that we are not alone in our challenges. Finally, I believe we need to reclaim our faith, because sometimes there are no black and white answers to life’s questions, and faith can help us cope with this level of ambiguity and complexity. In short, we need to embody faith, trust, and respect in all that we do, and in all that we say if we seek to unite our life rather than cope with a divided life. 

Learn to Unlearn

Asking big questions and working through complexity are normal aspects to the life of a leader. Working when overwhelmed and, at times, being afraid given the changes happening in the big picture may also happen. In short, there will always be challenges when working with people, and change. 

Nevertheless, when we grasp the important choices we need to make as a leader, we come to two important insights. First, we realize the significance and “necessity of learning to unlearn” as so aptly stated by the retired, Carleton College professor and dean, Bardwell Smith. We need to question ourself, not just others, and we need to question our understanding, assumptions, and expectations. Sometimes, we are just wrong about what is happening and why. By recognizing the importance of unlearning, we can execute better moving forward. 

Second, we realize the significance and necessity of embracing this old Quaker saying: “Let your life speak.” The questions we ask, or are confronted with may be big and complex, but the way we role model how to explore them, and to live with them always speaks louder than our words. This choice to consciously role model is directly connected to the choice of no longer living a divided life. Instead, we must choose to live a life united. “Embracing one’s wholeness makes life more demanding,” explains Parker Palmer, “because once you do that, you must live your whole life.” And, in the end, living from a place of united wholeness is the pathway to solving many of life’s most complicated and complex problem. 

Again, there will always be more questions and more problems when being a leader. And there will always be choices to make about how we respond to them. But, in the end, we need to live and work from a place of integrity, trust, and respect. Then, the idea of wholeness becomes a daily reality rather than a life based on unrealistic expectations. 

© Geery Howe 2026

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

The Emerging Challenge Of Leadership - part #1

The Big Question

Over the past couple of months, I have been visiting with various leaders, and a unique question keeps coming up in our conversations: How do we balance our understanding of the current and emerging market trends and the strategy of our company versus having the bandwidth to deal with continual operational problems, technical or adaptive, and, at the same time, discern the  strengths of each of our direct reports? When we dive deep into this multi-layered question, the discussion always get quite interesting. 

First, the question assumes that an individual is aware and understands the current and emerging market trends within their industry. It also assumes that an individual is aware and understands the strategy of their company. In the former, the focus needs to be on the speed of change in the trends, and a understanding of how quickly the overall risk profile is changing due to these trends. Once this is understood, a decision will need to be made about whether or not these conditions will require a change in the existing strategy of the company. However, the later assumes that an individual understands the strategy of the company, and knows why it is the right strategy given current events. 

From my perspective and experience, the first half of this important question starts with some big assumptions related to understanding trends and strategy. For my part, I no longer assume people understand these two things. Often, at best, they are aware of them, but have not done their in-depth homework to move from awareness to understanding. Therefore, their capacity to make major strategic decisions is more likely limited at best, or narrow in scope. 

Second, when it comes to the second half of this important question, it assumes that an individual is aware and understands the difference between technical and adaptive problems. It also assumes they know how to discern, and then build on the strengths of their direct reports. This level of problem-solving, and this level of people management takes a great deal of education, coaching, and experience over time in order to be done well. Again, from my perspective and experience, many of these kinds of assumptions rarely result in effective outcomes. 

But, given the original question is a good one, and given many leaders have, to some degree, a level of proficiency in these areas, the question still stands, namely “how do we do this?” When I enter into dialogue about this question with others, I realize that the problem is not due to a lack of effort or focus. Instead, what I discover is a lack of bandwidth around all of these issues. And I believe managing one’s bandwidth is a significant challenge for people in leadership positions. 

Understanding Bandwidth

Now, bandwidth is defined as “the maximum amount of data that can be transmitted over a network or internet connection in a given amount of time.” It also is defined as “the energy or mental capacity required to deal with a situation or problem.” The reality is that most people in leadership and management positions at this time period are trying to process a large number of problems with barely enough energy or mental capacity to handle the tsunami of information that is being directed toward them on an hour by hour basis. The result is that they feel overwhelmed, and burdened by it all. 

But, underlying this bandwidth issue is a dangerous assumption, namely I should be able to discern changes in market trends, understand strategy, solve all technical and adaptive operational problems along with building on the strengths of all my direct reports. And I should be able to do this all at the same time period. 

Now, any reasonable person, who is not feeling overwhelmed and burdened by this assumption, would look at these assumptions at face value, and recognize that they are unrealistic and unattainable. I seriously doubt at this time period that the majority of people in leadership positions can meet or excel given these expectations. 

When I pause and reflect about this situation, I am reminded of something that Arthur Brooks in his book, The Meaning of Your Life: Finding Purpose In An Age of Emptiness (Portfolio/Penguin, 2026), wrote about called “the Striver’s Curse: the more you achieve, the emptier you feel.” Right now, I believe that many people in leadership positions are suffering from the Striver’s Curse, and, as a result, are experiencing a deep feeling of emptiness at work, and in life over all. With a full bandwidth based on unrealistic expectations of self and others, plus an overall feeling of emptiness and a general lack of meaning or purpose in their life, many leaders don’t know what to do, and thus ask the aforementioned question, seeking a realistic and honest answer. 

The Four Realizations 

Through my many dialogues about this subject, my answer to this important question has three parts. First, we need to reset our expectations of our self and others. This begins with the following, four realizations:

- the realization that relationships are more important than tasks.

- the realization that processes are more important than outcomes. 

- the realization that intention is more important than attention.

- the realization that faith and trust are as important as competence and experience.  

Now, on the surface, these seem pretty elementary. However, to fully embrace them, one needs to focus on building and maintaining relationships, plus making sure the right processes, or systems are being followed correctly. For what I often discovered as a consultant was that a bandwidth problem often reflected a lack of healthy relationships and the belief that if I want to get something done, and done right, then I have to do it myself. However, when teams are functional rather than dysfunctional, and when healthy social networks are present, many leaders can activate a collective response to a problem or situation rather than default to their own individual effort. 

Furthermore, when processes are followed correctly, rather than by-passed because people don’t know of them, or don’t know how to utilize them, then people can solve their own problems rather than always defaulting to pushing up the problem to a person in a management or leadership position. 

To be continued on Tuesday. 

© Geery Howe 2026

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