At a crucial moment in World War 2, Winston Churchill is said to have consulted with two of his key advisors on how to proceed in the face of Nazi Germany’s terrifyingly-effective military advances. One proposed (my paraphrase), “We need to become more organised than the Nazis if we are to defeat them.” The other pushed back in response: “No, the key to victory lays in our unique ability to improvise and, thereby, to take the Nazis by surprise. Organisation is the enemy of improvisation.” What a dilemma. It’s like Myers Briggs J meets P in stark confrontation. The challenge here was how to face a serious existential threat posed by a highly organised enemy and not only to survive it but also to win: whether to out-organise the organised or to out-wit the organised by doing what they least expect. Yet, in that moment, two people looked at the same data-information, made sense of what they saw in different ways, drew different conclusions and proposed very different solutions. I see parallels in some of the opportunities and challenges that leaders, OD, coaches and trainers face today. In volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous (VUCA) and stressful situations, how often are our observations and decisions - and those of our clients - based subconsciously on (and thereby constrained by) implicit psychological-cultural assumptions and preferences, e.g. for certainty-structure vs fluidity-agility, rather than necessarily on what the situation itself calls for per se? Take, for instance, restructuring and re-engineering projects to solve issues where different types of conversations and relationships could have been less costly and more effective; or formal change management programmes that adhere to strict policies and procedures whereas innovative change leadership could have achieved far better outcomes. This begs important questions: What lies beneath different analyses and ideas for solutions? How can we work with clients to raise them into awareness?
22 Comments
Patrick O'Brien
21/7/2018 11:21:40 am
Support them to learn about and apply high reliability organising (Karl Weick).
Reply
Nick Wright
21/7/2018 11:23:59 am
Hi Patrick - and thank you for your encouraging feedback! I haven't heard of 'high reliability organising' before. Do you have an example of what it could look like in practice?
Reply
Patrick O'Brien
23/7/2018 10:10:58 am
Hey Nick.
Nick Wright
23/7/2018 10:25:07 am
Hi Pat. Thanks for sharing such fascinating insights. I just read a summary of Weick's book and found it very stimulating. I am used to working with appreciative inquiry (AI) and solutions-focused approaches and the Weick model you have described makes an interesting alternative perspective and approach. It reminds me of 'reflexivity' in research and of critical reflective practice. Thank you for sharing. I will order a copy of 'Managing the Unexpected'!
Patrick Hoverstadt
23/7/2018 10:26:26 am
Hi Nick
Reply
Nick Wright
23/7/2018 11:33:26 am
Thanks Patrick - and thank you for sharing the link. I found your strategy presentation fascinating. I think the coupling-dynamics idea is a great application of systems theory. I also liked the notion of 'not necessarily conscious'. My sense is that many of the influences and dynamics we experience, often out of awareness, lay outside of our ability to know or understand - let alone manage. This is where I believe fields such as social psychodynamics, complexity theory and social constructionism add very useful contributions to the conversation.
Reply
Jane Miller
23/7/2018 04:18:17 pm
Interesting. Know thyself. Have them answer Napoleon Hills Self Analysis questions. There will be ALOT of awareness from the answers. I tucked them on my site here: http://www.janemillerassociates.com/2018/07/18/napoleon-hills-personal-analysis-test/
Reply
Nick Wright
23/7/2018 04:18:41 pm
Thanks Jane. 'Know thyself' is an important factor - and thanks for sharing the link. Interesting reading. Perhaps there are other factors too, e.g. 'Know others' and 'Know thy situation'?
Reply
Dennis Hooper
24/7/2018 02:42:35 pm
Nothing gets done without the doing. Good ideas don't yield successful accomplishment--it's the execution of good ideas that contributes to desired outcomes.
Reply
Nick Wright
24/7/2018 02:48:14 pm
Hi Lester. I like how you expressed that: 'In VUCA situations, no one knows the "right" or "best" idea.' In my experience, this can sometimes leave leaders feeling anxious, confused or paralysed. In light of that, the coach may work with the client on, say, personal leadership resilience, dynamic systemic insight and complex decision-making as well as, in some instances, the presenting issue itself.
Reply
Anne Hudson
26/7/2018 10:44:51 am
Great article Nick and what a challenge to those working with clients in highly regulated sectors to be brave and call out those assumptions.
Reply
Nick Wright
26/7/2018 10:58:14 am
Thanks Anne. What an intriguing insight. Do you have any examples from personal experience?
Reply
Anne Archer
26/7/2018 11:36:12 am
It would seem uncertainty is a scary and difficult place so leaders get to solution as quickly as possible. That may mean missing a golden moment for a transforming decision.
Reply
Nick Wright
26/7/2018 11:41:30 am
Thanks Anne. I think that's very profound. If a leader is able to pause and reflect critically and with awareness on, say, 'What is driving my need for a decision?' or, 'Why am I drawn to decision X rather than to decision Y?', it can sometimes open up opportunity for more radical and transformational ideas and options to emerge.
Reply
John Gray
27/7/2018 10:43:55 am
I remember discussions around the 2016 referendum - reactions to the binary / limiting nature of the choice; and how often society or organisational decision-making pushes us into the binary.
Reply
Nick Wright
27/7/2018 10:53:38 am
Hi John - and well said! In cognitive psychology, binary thinking is often an indicator that a leader is under stress. It's as if there are absolutely only two options available - usually polar opposites, e.g. 'Do or die'. You may find this short related piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/fresh-thinking.html
Reply
Jeanne Schulze
27/7/2018 10:54:47 am
Excellent thoughts. And, the kid on the right looks exactly like my son Isaac. Really. It could be him.
Reply
Nick Wright
27/7/2018 10:55:32 am
Thanks Jeanne. Have you considered the possibility that Isaac may have taken up a modelling career as a sideline..? :)
Reply
David Adams
29/7/2018 09:40:38 am
We come to conclusions often based on gut feel tempered by our own patterns and those we have seen in others. We then rationalise. This why using de Bono’s 6 thinking hats is so powerful in making the best (not wrong or right) decisions.
Reply
Nick Wright
29/7/2018 09:42:14 am
Hi David. That is certainly consistent with some findings by Prof Eugene Sandler-Smith on leadership decision making. On that theme, you may find this related short piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/intuition
Reply
Ann Ryder
30/7/2018 10:24:19 am
Excellent article, Nick - and it's not just about 'structure Vs innovation' IMO, I think it's also a case of "monkey speak - monkey do"....many change initiatives wax lyrical about the radical (and not so radical) changes that they are advocating - but seem to stall once you take them down the consequences path.
Reply
Nick Wright
30/7/2018 10:25:49 am
Thanks Ann. Are you saying that 'action vs inaction' is another form of polarity that leaders may face in decision-making?
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Nick WrightI'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? Get in touch! Like what you read? Simply enter your email address below to receive regular blog updates!
|