Introduction
The term VUCA was first introduced at the Army War College, and also by Bob Johansen in his book, Get There Early: Sensing the Future to Compete in the Present (Berrett-Koehler, 2007). VUCA is defined as a time period when things and events are volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous. Kevin Cashman in his book, The Pause Principle: Step Back to Lead Forward (Berrett-Koehler, 2012), reports that Johansen contends that we have “to flip the VUCA forces to terms that create possibilities and refine VUCA as: Vision; Understanding; Clarity; Agility.” I think this is a brilliant observation and a goal that all leaders should be working on at this time period.
Recently, when visiting with an experienced executive, we discussed the current VUCA forces and this current period of prolonged uncertainty. In the midst of this conversation, he shared with me that he is seeing a rise in “uncertainty in the face of drama.” He said this is happening because a person, or a team, has an exaggerated response, or becomes overly emotional in their reaction to events and situations that are happening around them. As part of this reaction, they use hyperbolic language, and blow small things out of proportion. Furthermore, they seek control, and yet constantly create chaos in the process. The end result is that everything becomes more complicated, and we as leaders come to the conclusion that this individual or group of individuals more likely will not change their ways. Therefore, a decision has to be made if the team, division, or company is going to be successful.
I am also seeing the rise of uncertainty in the face drama happening in more and more companies at this time period. Leaders are already struggling and, for many, this situation is really pushing their buttons. They want answers on how to deal with this problem, and they want them fast.
When coaching people in regards to this situation as well as with what is happening within the current VUCA environment, I believe we need to step back in order to step forward, referencing the work of Cashman in the aforementioned book. We need to remember that being a leader attracts challenges, drama, and difficulties like a magnet attracts iron filings. It just comes with the territory. And, at the exact same time, we must realize that the pain of not dealing this situation over time will became greater than the pain of dealing with this problem. Therefore, we have some critical choices to make.
Keep Calm And Carry On
The first choice, and at times the hardest choice, is to be calm, and to stay calm. We as leaders also have strong reactions to the current VUCA environment. We can get spun up and very emotional about it all, too. Still, we need to stay centered, and not blow things out of proportion.
One way to do this is to set boundaries, and get support in order to maintain perspective. We need to decide whether certain subject are up for negotiation and change, and in what settings we are willing to discuss them with others. Furthermore, we need people in our lives who can listen to us and help us to slow down, regain perspective, and offer practical insights. As Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky in their book, Leadership On The Line: Staying Alive through the Dangers of Leading (Harvard Business School Press, 2002), point out, leaders need to get off the dance floor and up on the balcony in order to discern technical problems from adaptive challenges. As they write, this requires you to have the “capacity to see what is happening to you and your initiative, as it is happening.” The combination of setting boundaries and getting support to maintain perspective is vital to short and long term problem solving.
At the same time, the choice to be calm and stay calm is a major challenge. When dealing with drama, we can react from the place of drama and create more drama. But when we choose to be calm and set boundaries, we are creating new possibilities in the midst of imbalance. When we choose to get support in order to maintain perspective, we are checking our responses to drama and determining if we are the source of all that is happening, or if we are creating an environment for more drama. In essence, we are making sure we role model and tolerate appropriate choices and behaviors rather than inappropriate choices and behaviors. But in the beginning, we need to stay centered so, over time, we can flip VUCA to a greater vision, understanding and clarity. Then, we also can choose agility over reaction.
Generate Short Term Wins
The second choice is to connect and collaborate with others who have the capacity to generate planned short term wins. The term “short term wins” comes from the research by John Kotter in his book, Leading Change (Harvard Business School Press, 1996). In a later book, The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations (Harvard Business School Press, 2002), Kotter explains that we need to “produce sufficient short term wins, sufficiently fast, to energize the change helpers, enlighten the pessimists, defuse the cynics, and build momentum for the effort.” Kotter notes from his research that these wins need to be “visible as possible to as many people as possible” and that they “penetrate emotional defenses by being unambiguous.” Furthermore, these short term wins need to be “meaningful to others - the more deeply meaningful the better,” and that they “speak to powerful players whose support you need and do not have yet.”
I think one element of this choice that most people miss is that these short term wins are planned. Too often, leaders will call something a short term win and want to celebrate the accomplishment. Yet, many pessimists and cynics are not convinced, because the short term win appeared to come out of no where. However, when the short term win is planned, prioritized, and achieved plus when it is visible and unambiguous, then all involved recognize that progress is being made in spite of uncertainty and drama. This energizes those committed to necessary changes and defuses the drama around change.
Change Your Team
The third choice is to fully comprehend the following phrase: “If you can’t change your team, change your team.” Currently, this has become the default choice of many leaders. Over and over, leaders tell me that they do not have the right people on the right seats of the bus, or that they just do not have the right people. Therefore, they have decided to remove an employee from a team, or even remove them from the company.
My initial problem with this choice is that it is based on the assumption that someone is going to quickly find a new and better employee. Given the current job market, I do not believe this is a wise assumption. I also am hearing more and more stories of people searching for qualified and talented new employees, and not being able to find them.
Furthermore, this default choice is based on finding the “right person.” When I ask people about their definition of “the right person,” the answers are vague. They tell me it is like art. They will know it when they see it. I unfortunately do not find this an acceptable answer.
Who Before What
The term, “the right people,” first appeared in the writings of Jim Collins in his book, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap. . . and Others Don't (HarperBusiness, 2001). As he explained, “The good-to-great leaders began the transformation by first getting the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus) and then figured out where to drive it.” He continues, “The key point of this chapter is not just the idea of getting the right people on the team. The key point is that "who" questions come before "what" decisions - before vision, before strategy, before organization structure, before tactics. First who, then what - as a rigorous discipline, consistently applied.”
Nevertheless, most leaders who use this term are focused on vision, strategy, goals, and outcomes. They are “what” focused more than they are “who” focused. And the “rigorous discipline, consistently applied” of “First who, then what” was not utilized until a problem started to surface. As Collins points out, “The good-to-great leaders leaders were rigorous, not ruthless, in people decisions.” What bothers me about the current “the right people” discussion is that it is usually ruthless more than rigorous.
Collins returns to the subject of “right people” in a later book called How The Mighty Fall and Why Some Companies Never Give In (HarperCollins, 2009). Here, he further defines what the term means, answering the question “What makes for the “Right People” in key seats?” His answer is the following: “the right people fit with the company’s core values; the right people don’t need to be tightly managed; the right people understand that they do not have “jobs”; they have responsibilities; the right people fulfill their commitments; the right people are passionate about the company and its work; the right people display “window and mirror” maturity.”
From my perspective, each of these core elements needs to be discussed and explored as to their meaning and application. The difficulty is that we often under communicate and rarely train our front line supervisors and managers. Instead, we hold them accountable to deliver extremely high outcomes related to operational and strategic performance. And in this environment, their default choice to want to get rid of people or to remove them from the team is not surprising. As the old adage goes, “If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.” Likewise, if all you have is the perspective that there is only one choice when a problem arises, namely fire people and hire new people, then everything will be defined by this mindset.
To be continued on Tuesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment