Leaders need "3D" glasses
Leaders may need "3D" glasses.............to make sense of the world they operate in.
Imagine yourself sitting in an optometrist's clinic, where your vision is being tested for 6/6 accuracy. The optometrist will diligently balance a spectacles frame on the bridge of your nose and keep changing lenses while continuously bombarding you with questions on what and how clearly you are able to read random alphabets of diminishing sizes in a chart that is reflected in a mirror.
Well, the reality of leadership may come close to this situation, except that you need to be tested for your vision....and mindset...., along three dimensions. These are:
Peter Senge and Fons Trompenaars are two "gurus" whom I admire, for having surfaced these three seemingly obvious concepts into consciousness so effectively. In his famous book, "The Fifth Discipline", Senge categories complexity into the two types mentioned above.
Detail complexity concerns itself with the myriad of specifics, sometimes as an itemized list or a large bunch of identifiable elements, that can be narrowed down and reduced to direct action in a situation.
Dynamic complexity is relatively broader and more abstract, wider in themes and can appear to be hazy or intellectually fuzzy at the outset, with no immediate ready off-the-bat actionable solutions. It is not easy to establish linear cause-effect relationships while analyzing problems of dynamic complexity. However, with considerable brainstorming, examining the problem from multiple perspectives, identifying and breaking down the sub-themes in the overarching problem, specific factors can be derived by effective questioning and ideation towards solution-finding, that can ultimately lead to reduction of the problem to a manageable stage. Such discussions are perceived to be strategic, intellectually stimulating and therefore esoteric in nature.
The best way to understand the difference between these two categories is by illustrative examples.
Think of the Olympics, when you hear the words "detail complexity". It can a quintessential case for project management, in terms of planning, organizing, execution and evaluation. Consider the multitude of details that have to be brought to attention - the list of games, sports, venues, equipment, sponsorships, delegates, athletes and sportspersons, referees, scorecards, schedules, security, opening and closing events (each of which could be projects in themselves) and so on....; a classic example of detail complexity !
On the other hand, when managing climate change or eliminating hunger from the world come up as goals to be achieved, the problem statements are not easily amenable to specifics and actionable solutions, considering the magnitude, diversity and breadth of the issues involved, as well as their colossal depths. Why are so many people in the world still starving daily? What are the causes of all the weather pattern changes that we are witnessing in different parts of the world? Are the reasons common or related? How do we begin to address them? There is no ready band-aid fix for world hunger or climate change, at least, not yet. Cause-effect relationships are not readily identifiable while addressing these problems.
领英推荐
Here are some more random examples from daily-life to clarify the two concepts further:
DETAIL COMPLEXITY / DYNAMIC COMPLEXITY
If you study the above examples carefully, you will probably realize that dealing with dynamic complexity is more difficult than attacking a problem of detail complexity, wherein one has to employ divergent thinking to grapple with a wide range of uncertainties and unknowns. Contrastingly, problems loaded with detail complexity can be addressed with relatively narrower range of choices with the use of convergent thinking and boiling down to specific alternatives in decision-making. Divergent thinking needed for addressing issues of dynamic complexity requires vastly greater amount of imagination and creative skills than convergent thinking required for dealing with detail complexity, which relies more on logic deductive reasoning and action-orientation. It is therefore not surprising that we tend to assign premium value to skills of dealing with dynamic complexity than detail complexity. Which is why I suspect that we tend to value strategic leadership more than operational execution.
The third dimension in 3-D leadership that I was alluding to refers to dealing with dilemmas. Dilemmas are inherent contradictions in situations, and are usually addressed by trying to reconcile the extremes of differences using a "balancing-act" approach. The writings of Fons Trompenaars are the ultimate references in this subject. "Dilemma" - the word itself has a Greek origin - "di-lemma", which literally translates to the idea of two propositions, that are in apparent conflict with each other. A dilemma describes a situation where one needs to choose between two options, both of which may be equally appropriate and desirable, but mutually conflicting. For example, organizational policies need to be consistent, but flexible at the same time. Managers grapple the classic dilemma of concern for tasks versus concern for people in their daily work-lives.
Dilemmas require equal attention and weightage on both sides of the conflicting propositions, and therefore demand innovative third alternative resolutions more than simple middle-of-the-road compromises or simple binary "yes" or "no" responses. Examples of dilemma-ridden situations involve situational factors such as analysis versus intuition, practical logic versus creativity, rules versus exceptions, caution versus risk-taking courage or egoism versus altruism.
Leaders across organizations, both large and small, start-ups or established, global or local, for-profit or charitable institutions etc. will do well to recognize the above facets and devise their own effective ways to deal with the diversity of challenges they face in their environment. Dynamic and detail complexities, as well as dilemmas only seem to be increasing with technological innovations, geopolitical landscape changes and the social upheavals that we are witnessing all around us today. Perhaps we do a stellar job in educating and training successive generations in dealing with detail complexity, but I am not sure if we do equal justice to equipping our successors to take on problems steeped in dynamic complexity. That is probably because we are relatively more hard-wired as a community towards logical and deductive convergence rather than imaginative divergence in thinking. The other question that strikes me in this context: To what extent do we invest in training and developing emerging talent in dealing effectively with dilemmas?
It is likely that new thinking paradigms will be required to deal with these challenges.
As the ancient saying goes...." may we live in interesting times"!
Note:?The above article/post, with its contents is the personal view of the author, expressed purely in his personal capacity and is not related to any specific existing organization, institution, group or individual. Any such perceived resemblance or derived linkage or relationship as such is purely coincidental and unintended.
Director, Strategic Partnerships and Alliances
3 年Interesting !
Partner & Director at Transearch Singapore
3 年Great insights Mukund!