Introduction
In Ernest Hemingway’s novel, The Sun Also Rises, the character Mike Campbell is asked how he went bankrupt. “Two ways,” he replies. “Gradually, then suddenly.” To me, this is an elegant summary of 2025.
Some things this year have changed gradually, and some things have changed suddenly, if not dramatically. In the midst of all these changes, we as leaders are trying to figure out the implications of what has happened suddenly, and what is happening gradually. We also are trying to figure out how to respond rather than react to the magnitude of these changes.
The Critical Yeast
When I step back from the gradual and the sudden, I am reminded of an insight about the concept of achieving critical mass that John Paul Lederach shared in his book, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace ( Oxford University Press, 2005). As he explains, “Creating self-sustained processes of social change is not just about numbers in a sequential formula. The critical mass was in asking what initial, even small things made exponentially greater things possible. In nuclear physics, the focus was the quality of the catalyst, not the numbers that followed.”
Right now, many leaders are focusing on the number of changes taking place and how to deal with them. They all want to achieve change via “critical mass.” But effective leaders are focused on the quality of the catalyst, and on the space needed to support and sustain the desired changes, and the desired responses. As Lederach points out, “It seems to me that the key to changing this thing is getting a small set of the right people involved at the right places. What’s missing is not critical mass. The missing ingredient is the critical yeast.”
Every time I read this quote, I stop and think deeply. The shift from focusing on critical mass to the critical yeast is a brilliant observation. So, given current events, what is the critical yeast right now that will generate self-sustaining change?
The Right People
Initially, I believe the critical yeast has two elements, namely the role modeling of vulnerability-based trust and the building of trust on multiple levels, i.e at the personal, team, strategic, and organizational levels. But, upon further reflection, I think there is a deeper and more nuanced answer to this important question. I think this answer can be found in Lederach’s statement of “getting a small set of the right people involved at the right places.”
First, when ever I read the phrase the right people, I immediately think of something that
Jim Collins wrote in his book, How The Mighty Fall and Why Some Companies Never Give In (HarperCollins, 2009). When Collins was asked “What makes for the right people in key seats?”, he described them by the following characteristics:
- “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.”
Over the course of my career, I have met these kinds of people and they are incredible. I also have met people, who with extraordinary coaching and training, have become these kinds of people. The critical element is that one either hires these kinds of people, or supports people to become these kinds of people. For when we have the right people, who are willing, able, and ready to get involved, then we have a solid foundation for building sustainable solutions to adaptive challenges, and complicated technical problems.
The Right Spaces
Nevertheless, the later half of Lederach’s phrase is challenging because he focused on these right people getting “involved at the right places.” On the one hand, we all default to thinking that the “right spaces” is a physical space. And, I strongly believe that this is part of his insight. When we build safe and respectful physical spaces, where people do not need to hide their true identities or attempt to fit in, where there is an understanding that each of us belongs in this space just the way we are, and where there is an understanding that each of us is unique, then listening and sharing changes within these spaces. When an “us versus them” mentality fades away and courageous collaboration rises, something else important takes place, namely a shared mindset.
Martine Haas and Mark Mortensen in their excellent article, “The Secrets of Great Teamwork” in the June 2016 issue of the Harvard Business Review, write that “Distance and diversity, as well as digital communication and changing membership, makes them [teams] especially prone to the problems of ‘us versus them’ thinking and incomplete information. The solution to both is developing a shared mindset amongst team members - something team leaders can do by fostering a common identity and common understanding.” Recognizing these common barriers to cooperation and information exchange, Haas and Mortensen note that “One powerful approach is to ensure that each subgroup feels valued for its contributions toward the team’s overall goals.” They also point out the importance of “creating shared experiences and common reference points and stories” as a way to build bridges and relationships that support the growth of a we mentality more than an us versus them mentality.
When Haas and Mortensen talk about “structured unstructured time” as a means to building and supporting a shared mindset, I found, based on my experience and observations, that shared learning experiences that create shared language also boast the potential for shared understanding and greater collaboration. At the same time, I have witnessed that a facilitated, structured unstructured time can make a big difference. I did this often as a consultant and it helped all involved be on an equal footing within the group setting. With me monitoring the time and the pace of sharing, all involved could focus more on their listening, understanding and sharing.
The Right Combination
Linda Gratton and Tamara J. Erickson in their article, “8 Ways to Build Collaborative Teams” from the November 2007 issue of the Harvard Business Review, introduced eight factors that lead to successful collaboration. When I reflect on their thoughtful and practical insights, I am drawn today to two of these eight factors when it comes to the question of critical yeast. First, Gratton and Erickson note the importance of “assigning team leaders that are both task- and relationship-oriented.” As they explain, “The debate has traditionally focused on whether a task or a relationship orientation creates better leadership, but in fact both are key to successfully leading a team. Typically, leaning more heavily on a task orientation at the outset of a project and shifting towards relationship orientation once the work is in full swing works best.” Second, Gratton and Erickson note the importance of “understanding role clarity and task ambiguity.” Again, as they explain, “cooperation increases when the roles of individual team members are sharply defined yet the team is given latitude on how to achieve the task.”
For me, it is the combination of assigning leaders, who have the unique combination of being both task- and relationship-oriented, plus being able to generate role clarity within the team while also having the strength to handle task ambiguity, that creates the right conditions for the critical yeast to expand, and be integrated across the organization. Once the critical yeast has become resilient, then change can be self-sustaining and our responses to current events will not be reactionary.
Watch Out For Stealth Expectations
In the midst of focusing on the critical yeast, we need to re-examine the issue of expectations. The first place we need to start is with a book by Marcus Buckingham, Marcus and Curt Coffman called First, Break All The Rules: What The World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently, (Simon & Schuster, 1999). Buckingham and Coffman in this classic resource say that “Talented employees need great managers. How long he stays and how productive he is while he is there is determined by his relationship with his immediate supervisor.” From my experience and observations, I have witnessed this happen. However, I don’t think it paints the full picture of what they are trying to convey.
Deeper in the book, these two authors state that a manager or supervisor’s key activities are the following: select a person for a position, set expectations, motivate the person, and develop the person. Yet what is often missed in the subject of setting and clarifying expectations is that the supervisor or manager defines the right outcomes, not always the right steps, i.e. referencing an earlier point about role clarity and task ambiguity. In short, by defining the right outcomes and clarifying the company’s core values, i.e. how to work in any given situation, an employee can choose the path to achieve the desired outcomes.
Nevertheless, we need to realize that unexamined and unexpressed expectations, aka stealth expectations, are also being created in this process. As Brene’ Brown in her book, Atlas of the Heart: Mapping Meaningful Connection and the Language of Human Experience (Random House, 2021), writes: “Every day, sometimes, every hour, we are consciously and unconsciously setting expectations of ourselves and the people in our lives - especially those closest to us. The unconscious, unexamined, and unexpressed expectations are the most dangerous and often turn into disappointment.” As she continues, “When we develop expectations, we paint a picture in our head of how things are going to be and how they’re going to look…. We set expectations based not only on how we fit in that picture, but also on what those around us are doing in that picture. This means that our expectations are often set on outcomes totally beyond our control, like what other people think, what they feel, or how they’re going to react. The movie in our mind is wonderful, but no one else knows their parts, their lines, or what it means to us.”
Buckingham and Coffman encourage us to ask ourselves the question, “Do I know what is expected of me?” The question is an outside inside examination of what others are expecting of me. But Brown remind us, that we also have expectations of ourselves and of those around us, e.g. our manager or supervisor. From my perspective, managers and supervisors need to clarify outcomes and expectations. And, at the same time, employees need to clarify their expectations of their manager or supervisor. Furthermore, all involved need to do the in-depth and challenging work of clarifying the expectations they have of themselves. It is the combination of the two that helps the right people in the right places to strengthen and support the growth of the critical yeast. As Brown writes, “What expectations do you have going into this? What do you want to happen? Why? What will that mean to you? Do you have a movie in your head? And in this perception-driven world, the big question is always: Are you setting goals and expectations that are completely outside your control?” When we engage in individual and shared reality checking of our expectations, we further build capacity and resilience in the face of gradual and sudden change.
Act With Courage
“Courage is not the absence of of fear,” writes Ambrose Redmoon, “but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear.” While current events are amplifying emotions and, at times, overwhelming the cognitive, we, as leaders, still need to do the important work of sorting, analyzing, and prioritizing of information and data. Then, we need to lead our teams and our organizations, assisting all involved to merge and integrate the information and priorities into conscious choices on a daily basis.
As we do this important work, we need to comprehend that the phrase, “I understand,” is a beginning. However, this subsequent phrase, “I need to act on this understanding,” reflects a commitment to transform understanding into action. And this takes courage to do on a daily basis. It requires us to remember what is most important in the midst of fear and adaptive challenges. With things changing gradually and things changing suddenly, we, in the end, must choose connection and commitment over control and conformity. We need to be people who listen to our hearts as much as we listen with our ears. For it is the combination of the two that will activate the critical yeast and generate self-sustaining change.
For Further Study:
- Haas, Martine and Mark Mortensen, “The Secrets of Great Teamwork,” Harvard Business Review, June 2016
- Gratton, Linda and Tamara J. Erickson, “8 Ways to Build Collaborative Teams,” Harvard Business Review, November 2007.
- Katzenbach, by Jon R. and, Ilona Steffen and Caroline Kronley, “Cultural Change That Sticks,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 2012.
© Geery Howe 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment