Coping With Ambiguity

Recently, more and more leaders are talking with me about how to improve their capacity to cope with ambiguity, hold paradox, and deal with operational and strategic tensions. Rather than this being an occasional situation, it has now become routine. And privately, many have shared that they are not very good at it, and are struggling to figure out how to get better at it. The outcome of these discussions has resulted in some interesting insights. 

First, we need to define what is ambiguity. The dictionary tells us it is “uncertainty of meaning or intention.” It also is something that is “unclear or confusing” and something that “can be understood in more than one way.” In the written word, lexical ambiguity is caused by multiple meanings of a word, whereas structural ambiguity is caused by the structure of a sentence. 

However, in the world of leadership, strategic ambiguity is caused by a lack of  understanding about what exactly is happening in society and with their customers. Therefore, it is difficult to make decisions due to lack of information or conflicting information. On the other hand, operational ambiguity reflects a lack of direction, a lack of clearly defined roles, or a lack of clear definition of the problem someone is trying to solve. 

On a parallel track, a paradox is defined as “a statement or situation that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet perhaps true, e.g. “it was the beginning of the end.”

With the above definitions in mind, we must remember something written a long time ago. To paraphrase Einstein, we can not solve problems with the same consciousness that caused the problems in the first place. And this is what we are often doing. We are attempting to cope with ambiguity and paradoxes with an “old” consciousness. 

In order to create a “new” consciousness around ambiguity and paradox, we must reframe the concept of change. First, leaders often share with me that people don’t like change and that they resist change. And one one level, this is true. However, we need to reframe this perspective. What I have learned over many decades is that people don’t resist change. They resist the loss of control. They resist the loss of clarity, competence, and confidence that routinely comes with any level of change. Thus, most people don’t want change to take place. 

But, if they are open to it, most of the time what they want is for change to happen some other place, e.g. be that in another division, location, system, or team. Because, deep down inside us, we fear change, not just because of the loss of control, but because we know on one level that we ourselves will actually have to change. 

Fundamentally, we like internal status quo and external status quo. While we may be open to some degree of external change, we do not like internal change and external change that happens at the exact same time period. This is what overwhelms us, and makes everything feel chaotic, the total convergence of ambiguity, paradox and tension. 

In the new consciousness that helps us understand and cope with this convergence, we must recognize that change changes us whether we like it or not. And along the way, we change change, too. In short, when we change, change changes. Understanding this insight is critical to a new level of consciousness. 

The other critical insight to a new level of consciousness, and a new way of leading, is to recognize that we are all connected. We have a choice to participate in a shared consciousness, i.e. a shared level of clarity and understanding about change. This common ground is how great leaders and great teams cope with change, and can change change. They start from the place of “all being on the same page,” or, in essence, having the same mindset or consciousness about what is happening and what could happen. 

And from this unitive understanding, we can change change, and be changed by change without loosing the feeling of being grounded through it all. This happens because our shared consciousness is a line of continuity greater than our need for maintaining status quo. This shared mindset also provides us with new perspectives and new ideas about how to proceed in the face of confusing and difficult periods of ambiguity, paradox, and tension. 

Strategic and operational ambiguity is not going to go away any time soon. All leaders will encounter adaptive challenges and technical problems on a regular basis. It comes with the territory. But on the days that it feels overwhelming, we need to remember three things. First, no problem can be solved by the consciousness that created it. Second, change changes us as much as we change change. Third, the development of a shared consciousness becomes a line of continuity and a force multiplier, which can generate effective solutions. In short, clarity and shared consciousness always trump the need for maintaining inner status quo and external control. 

This week, seek to expand your consciousness and to share it with others along the way. The outcome of this line of thought and action will be helpful for all involved on so many levels. 

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

The Challenge of Disorder

In the life of a company, there are cycles of change. Some happen over the course of three years. Others happen over the course of five years to ten years. Some happen in as little as six to nine months while others happen in eighteen months. The key is to understand that evolution is constantly taking place within every organization. 

Understanding that change is a constant and normal, we often describe this cycle as the movement from order to disorder, and then to reorder. Some leaders will define change as a series of inputs creating a process which results in a set of outcomes. 

When I listen and visit with leaders this year, I am noticing an interesting trend. They are all starting to realize that more and more people are joining their organizations during times of disorder with no understanding, experience, or memory of the times when there was order. As a result, the new employees are struggling greatly, and the leaders within the organization are also struggling.

In simple terms, each group is frustrated with the other. One wants to know when the crazy times are going to end and when some level of normality will surface. The other group wants people to understand that disorder is not a bad thing. Instead, it is a normal thing in the life of an organization. 

I think this is all coming to a head now because we have been living at the edge of disorder and chaos for so many years that nothing ever feels like normal anymore. This has been compounded by numerous unforeseen inputs and variables, generating many unforeseen outcomes and consequences. Furthermore, leaders are constantly making multiple course corrections due to the unforeseen inputs and outcomes. The result is a revolving pattern of disorder that feels like perpetual chaos. 

Thus, new employees never get through orientation without someone telling them that while a system is supposed to work in a certain way, it never really does due to large and small changes happening inside and outside the company. And divisional leaders and managers feel like every day is a balancing act between crazy and clarity, adaptation and anarchy. In short, everyone is wondering when order or reorder will finally show up and save the sanity of all involved. 

During my many conversations about all of this, I have realized that there is one thing missing, namely clarity about the concept of stewardship. The dictionary tells us that stewardship is “the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care.” In the world of leadership, this means an individual takes responsibility for the relationships with their direct reports. It also means taking care of the strategy that is driving the company. 

But within all of this stewardship, many leaders under communicate something very important, namely the line of continuity through the disorder. During the periods of disorder that start to feel like near or total chaos, a leader needs to preserve the core of the company. Most do this by focusing on making sure certain key systems are working in a timely and accurate manner. While I agree these systems are important, I also know over 38+ years of doing this work that systems evolve over time. The inputs, the process, and the outcomes also evolve over time. What does not and should not evolve over time is the core ideology, i.e. the mission and core values. 

When mission, namely the purpose of the company, in combination with a set of core values becomes the line of continuity through disorder, the outcome is resilience and the capacity to adapt. And with practice, support, and well timed coaching, a mindset is created that can embrace complexity, support continuity, and, at the exact same time, drive for continual progress. It is the convergence of all three of these elements that generates the individual and collective ability to evolve, experiment, and change things. It is the mindset that variation, evolution, and continual improvement are not the problem, but the solution to maintain viability within a constantly evolving world and workplace. 

For leaders and employees, the challenge of disorder is real and difficult. When the line of continuity through the disorder is built and continually reinforced, then individuals and teams can maintain clarity about what matters the most, and can communicate in respectful and healthy ways during the periods of disorder. In short, all involved can measure their progress, be it during times of order, disorder, or reorder. They also know their jobs matter and they can feel fulfilled in the work they do on a daily basis. 

Cycles of order, disorder and reorder are not going to go away. Inputs will create a process and generate outcomes. This is the foundation of continual evolution and healthy organizational change. And when leaders steward a line of continuity through it all, and create clarity about what is essential, and meaningful during these cycles, then purpose and progress become very important. 

This week, I challenge you to figure out what is the line of continuity in your world and how you are going to communicate it to others. Being purposeful and progress-driven is a force multiplier during times of disorder. 

© Geery Howe 2024

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

Mutual Care

Many years ago, I had a student in one of my classes who always responded to my greeting in a unique way. When I would see him first thing in the morning, I would say to him, “Hi Bill. It is nice to see you today.” And he would always respond, “It is nice to be seen.” This response often stopped me. I wasn’t sure how to proceed. He wasn’t being arrogant or annoying. He was generally glad to be seen at the start of class. 

Over the course of our time together, he slowly shared about the hard and complex challenges in his personal life. From my perspective, he was swimming in the deep end of the pool. Thus, being seen was important and meaningful to him. It was a sign of caring. 

Over the course of many years, our paths would routinely cross and he would always respond with “It is nice to be seen.” Then, one day he said to me, “It is nice to see you today, Geery.” And I responded, “It is nice to be seen.”

We paused at this moment, and smiled. Tears came to my eyes because I finally got it at a deeper level. It is good to be seen. It is good to be acknowledged. It is good to know that my presence matters. It is good to to know someone cares. 

I haven’t seen Bill in a very long time. That happens in life’s long journey. But this does not bother me, because I know Bill cares even when we are not in the presence of each other. I know that no matter what happens or where life takes us, his kindness has not changed. His thoughtfulness has not disappeared. Between the two of us, there is a depth of mutual caring. 

All of this came to mind recently when I read something that Mark Nepo wrote in The Book Of Awakening: “It is essential to realize and embrace the paradox that while no one can go through your journey for you, you are not alone. Everyone is on the same journey. Everyone shares the same pains, the same confusions, the same fears which if put out between us, loses their edges and so cuts less.” 

He continues this line of thought with the following story. “A very touching story from the Talmud captures this soft paradox of how we all journey alone together. A Rabbi asks his students, “How do you know the first moment dawn has arrived?”

After a great silence, one pipes up, “When you can tell the difference between a sheep and a dog.” The Rabbi shakes his head no. 

Another offers, “When you can tell the difference between a fig tree and an olive tree.”

Again, the Rabbi shakes his head no. There are no other answers. 

The Rabbi circles their silence and walks between them, “You know the first moment of dawn has arrived when you look into the eyes of another human being and see yourself.”

As Nepo explains, we are all travelers, and we are all alone on one level. Yet, we are all alone together. We all share the potential of making a positive difference in the world.

Nepo also shares that when African Bushman greet each other as someone is coming out of the bush, one person says “I See You!” And the other person responds “I Am Here!”

On this Monday morning, I say to all of you “I See You!” You are whole and beautiful in the midst of your journey. And in that reflection, I see myself as whole and beautiful, too. 

On this Monday morning, I also know your response “I am Here!” 

Or as my old friend, Bill, would say, “It is good to be seen.”

We are all alone together, connected and caring.

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

Two Leadership Paradigms

‘In late 1991, the telegraph industry's life was taken suddenly and brutally, by the facsimile machine,” write Don Peppers and Martha Rogers, Ph.D. in their book, The One to One Future: Building Relationships One Customer at a Time (Currency Doubleday, 1993). “For more than 150 years, the telegram stood for immediacy and importance. It was an icon for urgency. But now, Western Union has closed down its telegraph service around the world. The fax was a new technology the telegram could not survive. The shift from teletype and telegram to facsimile represents one aspect of what business consultants term a ‘paradigm shift’ - a discontinuity in the otherwise steady march of business progress.” As one who remembers the arrival of the fax machine and the transformation it created in the business world, I agree with Peppers and Rogers that it was “a discontinuity in the otherwise steady march of business progress.”

In the world of leading people, there have been paradigm shifts, too. Many years ago, the late Warren Dennis wrote about two different leadership paradigms. He called them COP and ACE. 

The COP paradigm is defined by maintaining control, order and predictability. This is the choice of many leaders when confronted with change, chaos, or any thing else that they deem as a problem or disruption. This paradigm choice defaults to a command and control form of leadership. It is their way to cope with constant or messy change.

Over decades of teaching about these two different leadership paradigms, many people have assumed that I am against order and predictability. This could not be further than the truth on so many levels. In daily operations and in our daily lives, having a degree of order and predictability is mission critical to success. What frustrates me about the COP paradigm is not the desire for order and predictability, but the way many leaders choose to execute control over others, especially as the primary means of helping people move forward through organizational change.  

While I have had many conversations with a diversity of leaders about command and control leadership, I have to point out that they often use the language of command and control, but behave as if it is really control and command. This later form of leadership is based on fear, intimidation, and dominance, which does not generate anything more than forced movement. It does not result in resilient, adaptive, aware, and creative engagement with change. 

From my vantage point, the COP paradigm focuses on stability over change, i.e. the maintaining of status quo. However, successful organizational change is based on the premise that there is a better or more effective way of doing something. Control and command is based on getting something done and then returning to status quo. While this will reduce disequilibrium or chaos within the organization, it does not generate engagement or ownership of that which is trying to be created over time.

As a side bar to this subject, I have had the honor of meeting with people from all the branches of the military, who have explained to me that command and control is an effective form of leadership. And I agree 100% with their perspective. However, I point out that it works in the military, because people understand two things.

First, the word mission in the military is defined as “a task or operation that is assigned by a higher headquarters” or “an important task that people are given to do.” In the world of business, mission is defined as “the core purpose of an organization” or “what we do as a company.” In simple terms, the word mission in the military is something we do, i.e. a goal or objective to be completed, while in business it defines who we are, i.e. our purpose. 

Second, the difference between command and control in the military vs the business world is that communication within the military is very different than in the business world. When we look up the definition of command and control in the U.S. Department of Defense Dictionary, it defines the term as “the exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission.” The critical element within the definition and why command and control leadership works within the military is that it is  based on an effective bi-directional flow of timely and accurate information. In the business world and in the civilian population, this is not the case and often is rare when it does happens. 

One interesting footnote to this side bar is found in the writings by former Marine Corps four-star general and secretary of defense Jim Mattis and Bing West in their book, Call Sign Chaos: Learning To Lead (Random House, 2019). As they note, “If you as the commander define the mission as your responsibility, you have already failed. It was our mission, never my mission…. I was taught to use the concept of ‘command and feedback.’ You don’t control your subordinate commanders’ every move; you clearly state your intent and unleash their initiative.” If we seek to lead from the place of command and feedback plus have created a viable, timely, accurate, and effective system of bi-directional flow of information, then we have moved past a control based leadership paradigm and generated a force-multiplier based on mission clarity, commitment and connection.

On the other hand, the ACE paradigm is defined by alignment, co-creation and empowerment. The goal here within the business world is to capitalize on matching talent, or what is often termed as strengths, with opportunity. The ACE paradigm generates adaptability and resilience within the parameters of dynamic change. This is a solutions based approach to leadership.

Within the ACE paradigm, the concept of alignment is based on an understanding of the whole and the parts of the company, i.e. the strategic nexus which is the sum of mission, vision, and core values plus the overall strategy or strategic intent of the company. This alignment comes from an agreement in thought, word, and deed about how to act and work in accordance with the strategic nexus. 

The concept of co-create within the ACE paradigm is based on an understanding that we work together to execute the mission and goals of the company. Rather than a “I create and you follow” mentality, there is a clarity about a key insight that Margaret Wheatley wrote, namely “People only support what they create.” 

Finally, the concept of empowerment within the ACE paradigm is one of the hardest choices a leader can make. It requires us as leaders to give up on control over other people. Instead, we have to help people have confidence in their ability and their knowledge, and in their team and their company. We need to help them believe they can make the right decisions and the right choices as they seek to achieve predetermined outcomes and/or goals.

I understand society’s need for order, structure, and predictability. I also understand our own personal needs for order, structure, and predictability in our lives. But the former only takes place when an individual has the time, the energy, and the support for personal growth, innovation, and adaptability. Each of us seeks experiences which are rich, deep and meaningful. Each of us desire wholeness in our lives. The pathway to achieving this is by defining your leadership paradigm, and choosing to live it each and every day. 

© Geery Howe 2024

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