You Are The Curriculum

It is common during hard times for a senior leader to call me up, and request that I come and deliver a leadership seminar. They believe that once the training is completed, all will be right in the world again. In particular, they believe that all who participated in this training will be, once again, motivated, focused, and ready to charge forth. They will then have the capacity to overcome anything and everything.

While I am strong believer in the transformational power of education, I am not always certain that a seminar is the first place to go during hard times. Instead, I believe we need to start by asking an important question: What are the characteristics of a leader worth following?

During the 24 years that I taught the From Vision to Action Leadership Training, a year long and in-depth course about leadership, strategic planning, and organizational change, I asked this question of my students and dove deeply into their answers. We explored and debated the characteristics of a leader worth following, particularly during organizational change and difficult periods with numerous adaptive problems. 

Over and over during these lively discussions, students shared with me that the leader they choose to follow was someone who was caring and faithful. These leaders helped people understand what was happening and what it meant for them as an individual and as a company as a whole.  They focused on being trustworthy and compassionate. They were authentic and helped others understand what to focus on during hard times. 

In each of these important discussions, students regularly came to one significant and important realization. The way leaders choose to act was powerful. Their role modeling taught them more than anything else during hard times. 

I always smiled when this realization surfaced during class. It was a big “aha” during the first session, because time and time again, students came to understand that theory became reality based on how we behave as a leader, not just what we think as a leader. 

That is why I regularly remind leaders during hard times that you are the curriculum. Your actions and your choices are noticed and discussed. Your questions and your responses are explored and reflected upon day in and day out. While a seminar can be very helpful to create common ground, the most important learning takes place when we, as leaders, choose to act with integrity and clarity. As Brene’ Brown reminds us, “Integrity is choosing courage over comfort; choosing what is right over what is fun, fast, or easy; and choosing to practice our values rather than simply professing them.” Our choices have a profound impact. Thinking clearly about them and then choosing thoughtfully will help you and your entire team move forward together. Hard times happen. So can good choices. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Being Resilient During Hard Times

During a time period of high unpredictability, she shared with me about some of the major problems before her organization. In particular, she was deeply concerned about whether or not there would be adequate staffing levels to maintain daily operations, the continued turnover in certain departments, and an overall reduction in their employee engagement scores. At the same time, there were industry changes happening, including funding changes. And she could not influence any of these changes, or predict how they would impact the company. 

She paused in her sharing and said, “In the midst of all these hard times, there is a tremendous need for the services we offer. Furthermore, there is an opportunity to expand our services and to support more people. We are doing the right things for the right reasons. Still, I am struggling. We are struggling. 

I have two questions for you this morning, Geery. First, what do I do when the future is filled with tons of opportunity and I have no staff to execute on this potential? Second, what do I as a leader when it all feels hopeless? These are such hard times, and I do not know how to move forward through them.”

During the long pause that followed this important sharing, I was reminded of the chorus to the song, “Hard Times Come Again No More” by Mavis Staples. As Staples sang:

’Tis the song, the sigh of the weary

Hard time, hard times, come again no more

Many a days you have lingered all around my cabin door

Oh, hard times, come again no more.

What followed this sharing and numerous follow-up coaching sessions was an on-going discussion about how to be resilient during hard times, and how to find hope when we are struggling. For when we choose to be resilient, we can maintain perspective and discover new solutions even in the midst of short and the long challenges. 

Hope And Adversity Are Interrelated

“Hope is a function of struggle,” writes Brene’ Brown in her book, Atlas of the Heart: Mapping Meaningful Connection and the Language of Human Experience (Random House, 2021). “We develop hope not during the easy or comfortable times, but through adversity and discomfort.” 

I have known and interacted with many leaders over the course of my career. We have shared deeply, and explored a wide variety of problems, adaptive and technical, and even a few crisis situations. Upon reflection, I have not known a single leader who woke up on a Monday morning and hoped that the day would be filled with struggle, adversity, and discomfort. Most just wanted to get up and make progress on a few important things. They wanted to make a difference, strategically and operationally. They wanted to live a life that was purpose driven. They wanted to feel engaged. 

However, many of these same leaders have come to the realization that they did not create all the problems that are showing up at their “cabin door,” referencing the earlier song. They also know that they can not control or influence most of these problems, They even recognize that some of these problems may never be able to be fixed. They may not like this, but most are realistic about the limits of their position. And yet, even with this degree of clarity, there are periods when they as leaders can become overwhelmed and feel hopeless. 

Brene’ Brown explains that “hopelessness stems from not being able to set realistic goals (we don’t know what we want), and even if we can identify realistic goals, we can’t figure out how to achieve them. If we attempt to achieve the goals, we give up when we fail, we can’t tolerate disappointment, and we can’t reset. Last, we don’t believe in our selves or our ability to achieve what we want.”

One of the major problems related to this feeling is best summarized by Pastor Rob Bell. As he wrote, “Despair is a spiritual condition. It’s the belief that tomorrow will just be like today.” And this is the strangle hold that hopelessness places on us. It makes us think, and sometimes believe, that the situation today is permanent and will never end. In essence, we come to believe that tomorrow will be the same as today, a never ending cycle of frustration, hopelessness, and despair. 

Yet, I am reminded of the words of Maya Angelou when coaching some one during such hard times: “You may not control all the events that happen to you, but you can decide not to be reduced by them.” This choice, to not be reduced by our challenges, takes tremendous courage and discipline. It is not a “one and done” situation, but a daily practice to keep reframing what is happening before us as leaders. 

As an executive coach, I have found one line of exploration that has been very helpful during hard times. I discovered it in Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall’s book called Nine Lies About Work: A Freethinking Leader’s Guide to the Real World (Harvard Business Review Press, 2019.) As they write, “… go to the past… When you had a problem like this in the past, what did you do that worked? What do you already know you need to do? What do you already know works in this situation?” This line of questioning and the resulting reflection has generated many new insights and practical solutions. It helps us remember that we have seen hard times before, and that we have found a path through these times. And that is what the best leaders do. They move forward, because they understand that it is part of their job as a leader. 

These same leaders do one other thing. They always do their own work first. They make time to share. They make time to reflect. They make time to understand more about themselves and their choices. In essence, they make time to listen, learn, and lean in to the challenges before them.  And by doing this deep inner work over time, they restore a sense of perspective about how to proceed even in the midst of their feelings. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Lead With Intention

“Three things are true at the same time,” writes philosopher Max Roser. “The world is much better; the world is awful; and the world can be much better.” When we are leading through complexity, adaptivity, plus volatile market conditions, we have seen and experienced all three of these truths. We have seen people be better, and we have seen them be awful to each other. We also have come to realize that the world can be a much better place.

Furthermore, we have come to understand at a deeper and more holistic level what Nath Furr and Susannah Harmon Furr wrote: “Uncertainty and possibility are two sides of the same coin.” We can focus on one side or the other. The choice is ours to do when leading through complexity. 

Yet, as we make this important choice, I am reminded of something Bob Briner and Ray Pritchard wrote many years ago: “Good leaders have a vision; better leaders share a vision; the best leaders invite others to join them in spreading their vision.” In order to spread a vision that leads us through complexity, we need to be very mindful of the words we use. We need to build a shared mindset based on common language and common understanding. We need to ask ourselves some important questions, and build respectful safety zones where healthy and realistic strategic dialogue can take place. We need to embrace the Genius of the AND as well as comprehend the the role of strategy and strategic intent. We need to help people learn how to structure their thinking, and value the role of routine coaching and check-ins. We need to understand the intersection of trust, vulnerability and teamwork as well as the relationship between building organizational culture and holding people accountable. Finally, we need to engage in dynamic stewardship, and value our interdependencies. 

As we do this on-going work, let each of us remember the advice and counsel of L. R. Knost: “Do not be dismayed by the brokenness of the world. All things break, and all things can be mended. Not with time, as they say, but with intention. So go. Love [and lead] intentionally, extravagantly, unconditionally. The broken world waits in darkness for the light that is you.” When our hearts and minds are one, and our intention is based on clarity, courage, and integrity, we can meet the challenges of this time. We can make the world a much better place to live and to work. This is the legacy we can pass on to others when we lead through complexity. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

The Need For Dynamic Stewardship

Leading through periods of complexity and numerous adaptive challenges can be frustrating, confusing, and paralyzing. Some days, it feel like we are surrounded by ambiguity, uncertainty and risk at every corner, wondering which pathway to take to get through it all. John Paul Lederach writes, “The permanence of change requires the permanence of creative adaptation.” For leaders who have not been paralyzed by complexity, this creative adaptation is built upon the foundation of one central idea, namely that the on-going and dynamic nature of complexity requires the ongoing and dynamic stewardship of relationships and social spaces. 

During times of continuous adaptivity in the midst of complexity, we must balance change and continuity through relationships. We can do this through two specific actions.  First, we must acknowledge our interdependence. As Margaret Wheatley wrote, “Nothing in the universe exists as an isolated or independent entity. Everything takes the form of relationships, be it subatomic particles sharing energy or ecosystems sharing food. In the web of life, nothing lives alone.” When we make this choice, we understand the significance and importance of a relationship centric approach to complexity. Instead of reducing the problem to local needs vs corporate needs, and subsequently to an us vs. them polarity, we must instead embrace the realization that only through healthy relationships, and continuous social networking can we generate adaptive solutions which can handle the dynamic nature of complexity. 

Second, we must “develop a capacity to see and think strategically about social spaces,” notes John Paul Lederach. When we understand that connections and interdependence are built and maintained within social spaces, then we must commit to creating these spaces, and to supporting people to meet within them. And when we gather, we as leaders must create an environment where people do not need to hide their true identities or attempt to fit in. Within these social spaces, all involved must understand that each of us belong just the way we are. Each of us are respected as unique and talented people. 

With the combination of these two elements, acknowledging our interdependence in the face of complexity, and valuing the role of social spaces as a pathway to building and maintaining relationships which will generate adaptive solutions, we are creating strategic and operational networks across the entire company foot print. As John Paul Lederach reminds us, “Who we have been, are, and will be emerges and shapes itself in a context of relational interdependency.” When dynamic stewardship is a part of an ongoing response to complexity, then we are creating capacity for today and for tomorrow. We are building bridges that promote and support the on-going evolution of all involved. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

Culture & Accountability

“Culture produces results,” writes Roger Connors and Tom Smith in their book,  Change the Culture, Change the Game: The Breakthrough Strategy for Energizing Your Organization and Creating Accountability for Results (Portfolio Penguin, 2011). They ask us to reflect on two important questions: “So what is your desired cultured? And what are the desired results you are seeking?” The answers to these two questions are crucial to solving the immediacy of various, pressing problems, because clarity about the culture we seek to create helps us to define how the problems and challenges before us should be solved. 

Annamarie Mann and Ryan Darby in their article, “Should Managers Focus on Performance or Engagement?” in the August 5, 2014 issue of the Gallup Management Journal, write: “High-performance managers hold their employees accountable for performance. It is not enough to be involved and provide direction. Great managers also ask their employees to take ownership of their success or failure. High-performance managers don't allow a culture of excuses or poor performance; no one thrives in such a culture. When managers don't hold employees accountable for performance, about seven in 10 employees (69%) are actively disengaged; only 3% are engaged.” 

The intersection of creating organizational culture and holding people accountable is often forgotten in the rush to solve pressing problems, especially during times of complexity. Yet, we must not forget what Kevin Cashman wrote years ago, “Leaders get what they exhibit and what they tolerate.” We need to be very clear about what we role model, and be very clear about how we hold people accountable. Both impact and create culture that over time transcends the most immediate problems before us. 

In order for accountability to be done successfully, the organizational culture needs to have transparency, participation, routine evaluation, and effective, bilateral feedback. On the surface this all seems manageable, but for many leaders and managers, they do not consider it a part of the work they need to do on a day to day basis. Often, this kind of work is framed up as the work the CEO or the Senior Team. However, in organizations that do handle complexity and adaptive challenges well, the leaders and managers understand that the avoidance of accountability will result in low standards of performance, and even dysfunctional teams. All of which will create a misaligned culture from what we aspire and what we actually experience. 

Now, the dictionary defines accountability in the following manner: “an individual or organization is evaluated on its performance or behavior related to something for which it is responsible.” From the definition’s perspective, part of accountability involves excellent supervision which involves oversight. In short, the person being held accountable must be completely responsible for that which must be done, and must be able to give a satisfactory reason for doing the work. All of this involves having common language and common purpose, clear expectations, good communication skills, and an understanding of alignment. For the person holding someone accountable, they need to be able to supervise, coach, give feedback, engage in collaborative behavior, and define consequences and results at both the strategic and operational levels. 

Culture, on the other hand, is the sum of behavioral norms that are agreed upon mostly by people in positions of power. Recognizing that the above definition of accountability involves quite a few behavioral components, exceptional leaders during times of complexity understand one basic, and very important fact. “In productive companies, the culture is the strategy,” writes Jason Jennings in his book, Less is More: How Great Companies Use Productivity as a Competitive Tool in Business (Penguin Putnam, 2002). “Unlike other companies, productive companies know the difference between tactics and strategy. The difference is the foundation that allows them to stay focused and build remarkable companies. They have institutionalized their strategy.”

In a company who defines their culture as a strategy, leaders understand that they have to consciously institutionalize their culture. This is a strategic choice, not just an operational reaction. In essence, they have to choose to define what is core, or most essential, to the company.

Jim Collins and Jerry Porras in their book, Built To Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies (HarperBusiness, 1994), define the term, core, as the sum of core values and core purpose. They call it the “core ideology.” As they write, “… we did not find any specific ideological content essential to being a visionary company. Our research indicates that the authenticity of the [core] ideology and the extent to which a company attains consistent alignment with the ideology count more than the content of the ideology.”

On a parallel track, Patrick Lencioni in his book, The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business (Jossey-Bass, 2012), writes that building and maintaining a cohesive leadership team “requires an intentional decision on the part of its members…. teamwork is not a virtue. It is a choice - and a strategic one.” He continues, “A leadership team is a small group of people who are collectively responsible for achieving a common objective for their organization.” In particular, this team must agree on the core ideology and then focus on creating a consistent alignment with it across the entire company. They also have to be able to articulate the core ideology, and the reason what it is mission critical to the success of the company.

While the concept of alignment seems so abstract and to a degree so does having and agreeing to plus articulating a core ideology, leaders, who are balancing the needs of the local community and the needs of the entire company, understand that alignment is everything, because it is essential to having a unified culture across the entire company rather than local or regional, cultural silos. Furthermore, once we have this unified core, we can hold people accountable to getting work done, and to getting it done in alignment with what we believe and how we aspire to work together. 

When we do this important work of unifying the core of the company and creating alignment, we have to remember that on any given day, be it at the community level of the corporate level, 80% of the staff report to a front line supervisor and work side by side with a small group of co-workers. For these particular staff, their front line supervisor and their co-workers, not the senior leadership team or even the CEO, are their world. For them, these relationships are the company culture, and the place where alignment is aspirational or inspirational. For them, accountability is an operational experience, rather than a strategic choice. 

Recognizing the impact of this perspective and the inter-relationship between culture and accountability, we need to focus more on the health and well being of our teams. For this is where the core becomes real on a day to day basis. As Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall wrote, “all work is teamwork.” Teams “help us to see where to focus and what to do.” Furthermore, people really care about which team they are on and who is leading that team. 

Buckingham and Goodall build on this perspective when they wrote: “… what distinguishes the best team leaders from the rest is their ability to meet these two categories of needs for the people on their teams. What we, as team members, want from you, our team leader, is firstly that you make us feel part of something bigger, that you show us how what we are doing together is important and meaningful; and secondly that you make us feel you can see us, and connect to us, and care about us, and challenge us, in a way that recognizes who we are as individuals.” In essence, the intersection of organizational culture and accountability happens at the local level every day. And it is this daily, local experience that creates or diminishes the capacity of the company during complexity. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

The Intersection of Trust, Vulnerability & Teamwork

For many years, I taught people that during organizational change, leaders are gardeners of trust. This is based on the recognition that followers place their trust in us as leaders when we all move forward together through the normal, and yet dynamic, elements of improvement and innovation at an organizational level. The reality is that to be a gardener of trust we need to grow trusting work relationships based on clarity, integrity, and compassion. 

Robert Galford and Anne Seibold Drapeau in their article, ”The Enemies of Trust"  in the February 2003 issue of the Harvard Business Review, write that there are three levels of trust. The first is personal trust, namely  "the trust employees have in their own managers.” The second is strategic trust, namely "the trust employees have in the people running the show to make the right strategic decisions.” I also believe that strategic trust encompasses the trust people have in their team leader and in their team. The third is organizational trust, namely "the trust people have not in any individual but in the company itself.” When dealing with the intersection of complexity and adaptivity, we need to grow trust in all of the aforementioned areas. However, there is one area that unlocks the other two, namely strategic trust or team based trust. 

Patrick Lencioni in his wildly popular book, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team (Jossey-Bass, 2002), writes that the true measure of a team is its ability to achieve results over time. He recognizes that “trust is the foundation of teamwork.” As he explain, the absence of trust is present when there is a “failure on the part of team members to understand and open up to one another,” and when there is a “lack of debate that exists during staff meetings.” During complexity, this lack of trust and this lack of healthy debate during meetings hinders the capacity of people and the team to commit to a plan, i.e. lack of understanding and ownership of the plan, and their ability to execute the plan. 

Lencioni further explains: “The only way to rebuild trust is to overcome our need for invulnerability.” He points out that “The most important action that a leader must take to encourage the building of trust on a team is to demonstrate vulnerability first.” While many before and after him have pointed out the importance of “vulnerability-based trust,” I don’t think many leaders see this as a viable strategy when dealing with complexity. Most frame it up as scary and uncomfortable during times of risk and uncertainty that comes with complex situations and adaptive challenges. 

I believe the idea of being vulnerable as a leader and to do this as a means to build trust is incomprehensible to many people. This is because they frame up vulnerability as an act of weakness, rather than a measure of courage. Brene’ Brown in her book, Atlas of the Heart: Mapping Meaningful Connection and the Language of Human Experience (Random House, 2021), writes “While these are uncomfortable and difficult experiences [of being vulnerable], there is no evidence that they are indicators of weakness. In fact, this is one of the biggest myths of vulnerability. We’ve found that across cultures, most of us were raised to believe that being vulnerable is being weak. This sets up an unresolvable tension for most of us, because we were also raised to be brave. There is no courage without vulnerability. Courage requires the willingness to lean into uncertainty, risk and emotional exposure.”

And we need to remember that in the land of complexity, many, if not most, challenges are adaptive in nature. They are defined as ones that call into question fundamental assumptions and beliefs and can only be address through changes in one’s priorities, beliefs, habits, and ways of working.  In essence, adaptive challenges require new ways of thinking and sharing. 

When we bring together all of the characteristics of adaptive challenges in one spot, we realize that feeling vulnerable at an individual and team level is an inherent part of dealing with these challenges. We need to recognize that at the intersection of complexity and adaptivity, we can not avoid vulnerability and it is not a sign of weakness. Instead, we need to “embrace vulnerability,” notes Brene’ Brown. As she continues, “If we can’t handle uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure in a way that aligns with our values and furthers our organizational goals, we can’t lead.”

Patrick Lencioni in his book, The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business (Jossey-Bass, 2012, understands this when he wrote: “The only way for the leader of a team to create a safe environment for his team members to be vulnerable is by stepping up and doing something that feels unsafe and uncomfortable first.” When he or she role models vulnerability as a way of building trust, they recognize that team based trust is the foundation for individual and collective action. Brene Brown confirms this in the aforementioned book when she writes, “Vulnerability is not weakness; it is our greatest measure of courage.” And when presented with complex and adaptive problems, we need leaders and teams to be courageous and connected to each other through healthy levels of trust. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

The Value of Regular Coaching

When I encounter an organization that is doing well with complexity and adaptivity, I always know that leaders and managers are all actively engaged in routine coaching and regular check-ins with their teams, teammates , and direct reports. Furthermore, I know that they have not reduced this to a formulaic interaction, but instead see this as a structured dialogue and development process to improve the professional competence to execute the organization’s strategy and strategic intent. 

Now, the dictionary defines a coach as someone “who instructs or trains the fundamentals.” The original definition of the word coach came from an old French word meaning “a vehicle to transport people from one place to another.” And while these are good and simple definitions, I like that the definition that Rodd Wagner and James Harter use in their book, 12: The Elements of Great Managing (Gallup Press, 2006). As they write, a coach is “anyone who, in the eyes of the employee, ensures she successfully navigates the course…. The important aspect is not which of many terms this protector goes by - friend, coach, advisor, sponsor, counselor, support - but whether the employee feels she is not abandoned inside the business.” Whatever the term, a coach is someone who is an ally and a confidant during times of challenge. 

With this in mind, we need to help all who are coaching understand that coaching is a structured dialogue about purpose, strategy, and relationships. It involves questions, analysis, action planning, and follow through. It happens with a person, not to a person. And finally, during coaching, we may not always be able to solve all the problems that come before us, especially given the presence of complexity and the need for adaptivity, but, we can emphasize the choices, and a framework for finding the right answers and solutions needed over time. 

Next, when it comes to the language around coaching, we need to define some key words and concepts. First, there is a difference between coaching and supervision. The goal of supervision is to observe, direct, or oversee the execution of a task, project, or activity. Coaching, on the other hand and as I mentioned earlier, is a structured dialogue and development process to improve the professional competence to execute. In short coaching is not supervision, and supervision is not coaching. 

Second, many people interchange the words coaching and check-ins. Many younger leaders and managers, who are required to coach someone who is older and more experienced, use the term check-in. I understand this choice, and recognize that the change in words can be helpful.

However, in the literature on this subject, most people frame coaching and check-ins as being two different things. 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), define a check-in as “a frequent, one to one conversation about near-term future work between a team leader and a team member.” This check-in involves “two simple questions: What are your priorities this week? How can I help?” Whether you call a coaching session a check-in is not the point. Instead, it is the clarity about the purpose of the exercise and the desired outcome. During times of complexity and adaptivity, we need regular and effective supervision, coaching, and check-ins. 

Next, we need to understand something that Kevin Cashman wrote in his book, Awakening the Leader Within: A Story of Transformation (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2003). As he explained, “stories are the language of leadership” and “questions are the language of coaching. “ The reason this is important is that routine coaching over time builds a common language, and a shared mindset. 

Within the world of coaching, Kevin Cashman in the aforementioned book notes that there are two different types of coaching. The first is transactive coaching which focuses on the transferring of competencies, skills and/or techniques from the coach to the person being coached. The second is transformational coaching  which focuses on the shifting of a person's mindset about what they are dealing with at an operational and/or strategic level. The former focuses on skills and knowledge while the later focuses on willingness, commitment, understanding, and perspective. 

When I dive deeply into the most effective coaching I’ve seen during complexity, I notice one very interesting element. The coach and the person being coached engage in deliberate practice. Now, some coaches will focus their coaching on the things that someone already knows how to do with the hope of helping them to do it better. But when coaching people within complexity, the best coaches focus on helping someone learn how to do something new and different. They understand that this form of coaching involves creating new cognitive road maps to move through complexity and adaptivity. In particular, it involves scenario based thinking, i.e. helping an individual achieve a strategic mindset by exploring different possible scenarios. They do this kind of coaching through open-ended questions such as “If this happens, what would we do?”, or “If that happens, what would we do?”. In essence, the coach is seeking to improve the skills and knowledge someone already has while simultaneously seeking to expand their range of skills and knowledge. When this is combined with organized and structured learning and constructive feedback that challenges someone to excel to the next level of their expertise, they empower people to be more independent and interdependent. In short, I agree with K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely in their article, “The Making of an Expert” in the July-August 2007 issue of the Harvard Business Review. As they write, “good coaches help their students learn how to rely on an inner coach.” 

When we understand the importance and the value of regular coaching, we comprehend that we are creating a structured space for dialogue, engagement, and sharing. All of which will strengthen relationships across the organization and with key people outside the organization. It is the combination of both actions within this relationship centric space that create the capacity to handle adaptive challenges and complexity over time. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257

The Importance Of Structure

In 57 BC, Julius Caesar’s army in their second year of campaigning in Gaul was unexpectedly and simultaneously attacked by the Nervii at three different points while part of the troops were crossing a river and another part was setting up camp. In Caesar’s Gallic War commentaries, it was written: “Caesari omnia uno tempore erant agenda.” Translated from Latin, this means “Caesar had to do everything at the same time.” 

This is a routine and common experience for people who are leading an organization through complexity. They feel overwhelmed by the number and magnitude of issues and problems that need to get solved, often all at the same time. It is constant, unending, and difficult work. Yet, having spent decades working with people through these situations, I have learned some interesting insights. 

First, we need to change our thinking about systems. We default to thinking of them as fixed and unchanging. However, when we step back and look at them with a long view, most systems are constantly evolving. They are, in essence, living. And as a living entity, they need to be responsive to the changing world around them. Failure to evolve would render them ineffective over time. 

In the short term, we want most systems to be stable, but in the long term and as they scale up across a widely dispersed, organizational geography, we need to recognize that “equilibrium is a precursor to death,” notes Richard Pascale, Mark Millemann and Linda Gioja. Surfing The Edge of Chaos: The Laws of Nature and the New Laws of Business (Three Rivers Press, 2000). As they continue, equilibrium “must be assessed in the context of scale and time….prolonged equilibrium dulls an organizations to arouse itself appropriately in the face of danger.” The needs of customers or persons served, and the needs of the company and its employees are constantly changing. Therefore, the systems must evolve in order to meet these external and internal changes, needs and expectations. 

Second, with the idea of living systems, complexity, and adaptive challenges in mind, we need to recognize that having a strategic mindset, as noted earlier, means that a leader needs to be an architecture of meaning, helping people to not only be clear, but also to structure their thinking. “All change results from a change in meaning,” writes Margaret Wheatley in her book, Finding Our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Time (Berrett-Koehler, 2005). To achieve a change in meaning over time, we have to think clearly and we need to organize, or in essence, structure our thoughts. 

As leaders, we routinely confront paradoxes and wrestle with deep questions about organizational identity and direction. This comes in the form of the following common questions: Who are we? What do we believe in or stand for? Where are we going? How are we going to get there?, etc.  The answers are generated from an understanding of the macro and the micro, internally and externally to the organization. So, leaders seek out these answers, recognizing that they will and must change over time. In short, they understand what Kevin Cashman wrote so many years ago, namely “As you believe, so shall you lead. And from my experience, building on Cashman’s insight, as employees believe, so they shall follow. 

With the building of structured thought, i.e. helping people put current events into context related to external trends and internal strategic choices and responses, both leaders and employees can work together because they have a shared mindset and a shared sense of meaning. As 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), remind us: “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.” And with the understanding of why, they can handle complexity and adaptive challenges better. 

Third, these same leaders need to focus on decision architecture. Ruth Wageman, Debra A. Nunes, James A. Burruss and J. Richard Hackman in their book, Senior Leadership Teams: What It Takes To Make Them Great (Harvard Business School Press, 2008) write that there are four essential tasks a senior leadership team must perform, namely information sharing, consultation, coordination, and decision making. In their article, “Making Judgment Calls: The Ultimate Act of Leadership” in the October 2007 issue of the Harvard Business Review, Noel Tichy and Warren Bennis point out that there are three stages to effective decision-making, namely preparing to make a decision, making a decision, and executing a decision. From my experience, I would add a fourth stage, namely to evaluate the decision. 

Rosabeth Moss Kanter in her article, “Transforming Giants” in the January 2008, issue of the Harvard Business Review, offers an interesting perspective on decision making after two years of studying multinational corporations, and after 350 interviews on five continents, she explains, “The key, I’ve concluded, is that a decisive shift is occurring in what might be called the guidance systems of these global giants. Employees once acted mainly according to rules and decisions handed down to them, but they now draw heavily on their shared understanding of mission and on a set of tools available everywhere at once.” And building on this shared understanding, i.e. a structured line of thinking, she notes, “In the most influential corporations today, a foundation of values and standards provides a well-understood, widely communicated guidance system that ensures effective operations while enabling people to make decisions appropriate to local situations.”

Now, when it comes to decision architecture, most leaders focus on making decisions. But in the land of complexity, adaptive challenges, and volatile market conditions, the best leaders want to understand how the decisions are being made, not just that they are made. In order to do this successfully, they ask themselves and others key questions: What decisions can I make and do I need to make? What decisions can they make and should they make? Next, they ask: When do they need to share a possible decision with me before they make it? When do I need to share a possible decision with them before I make it? Finally, they ask: Who owns the decision? And who will execute the decision? Who will evaluate the decision and the decision-making process? By answering these questions along with building a shared understanding about living systems and a shared understanding of meaning and context, all involved can move thoughtfully and carefully through complex, adaptive challenges. 

Geery Howe, M.A. Executive Coach in Leadership, Strategic Planning, and Organizational Change Morning Star Associates 319 - 643 - 2257