Today’s business climate is hyper-connected with an accelerating pace-of-change. This business climate creates important differences for leaders now, as compared to the past, and that means different behaviors are required of leaders to sustain viable success in their organizations for today and the future. In this post, we’ll discuss those behaviors and three related disruptive thoughts. However, before addressing those behaviors and thoughts, let’s define the key terms (relative to how we’ll use them in this post).
- Accelerating pace-of-change means that not only will change be something that continues to occur in the future, change will continue to occur faster and more frequently; i.e., the time where a steady-state of “no change” exists is becoming more and more rare.
- Hyper-connected means that a single action in one area of a system creates an impact in many other parts of the system; i.e., a local stimulus creates a distributed set of responses.
An additional term often applied to hyper-connected systems is “complex”; i.e., complex systems. Note that in this context “complex” is independent of how hard or easy something is to understand. Complexity, as used here, represents the interconnectedness of the system itself; i.e., hyper-connected. For example, think of a spider web as a hyper-connected system of silk threads which spread local activation across the entire system; the system of connections and interactions may be complex, yet it is still easy to picture and understand.*
Now, with the context set and defined, let’s get back to my statement of “different behaviors are required of leaders to sustain viable success in their organizations” in today’s business climate. Along those lines, there are three disruptive thoughts that change everything for Leaders:
- Unknown Management rather than Change Management
- Connective Patterns rather than Best Practices
- Dynamic Alignment rather than Cascading Commitments
We’ll call leaders who embrace and apply these disruptive thoughts: Adaptive Leaders. Let’s consider the different behaviors and impacts of each of those disruptive thoughts.
- Through the application of the first disruptive thought, Adaptive Leaders shift from dealing with “change management” (how we help people deal with the pace and volume of change) to embracing “unknown management” (how we help people deal with a fear of not knowing).
- Through the application of the second disruptive thought, leaders become Adaptive Leaders when they shift from “best practices” (the one right way to do something, based on cause-and-effect) to “connective patterns” (the sets of actions that create predictable outcomes, based on stimulus-and-response).
- Application of the third disruptive thought connects all of three thoughts together: the first connective pattern for unknown management is Dynamic Alignment.
Elaborating each of the three disruptive thoughts
Through Unknown Management we address three topics for a given situation or objective:
-
- Knowns,
- Unknowns, and
- Context, in which the Knowns and Unknowns live
Adaptive Leaders become comfortable with Unknowns, and their associated uncertainty or ambiguity, yet they’re not tolerant of remaining there. They seek to learn and adopt sets of properly contextualized action patterns, aka connective patterns, that they can apply for explicitly engaging in Unknown Management.
By Connective Patterns we mean contextualized action patterns that produce predictable outcomes across a complex system. These patterns “connect” the local context of a system, a stimulus that can be applied to the system, and a corresponding response that is produced by that system based on the stimulus applied (aka stimulus-and-response).
This differs from traditional cause-and-effect or root-cause-analysis approaches because “emergence” masks cause-and-effect in hyper-connected complex systems. By shifting from singular cause-and-effect analysis to multi-dimensional pattern identification and application, outcome predictability is simplified through the patterns. As an example, let’s consider two types of puzzles: a traditional interlocking picture puzzle and a Rubik’s Cube.
The first puzzle, the interlocking picture puzzle, can be used as an example of a traditional cause-and-effect approach. Consider solving an interlocking picture puzzle by connecting the pieces one by one until the puzzle is completed; along the way, the effect of connecting individual puzzle pieces means those pieces maintain the same relationship indefinitely. The interlocking picture puzzle can be completed progressively and incrementally by placing individual pieces, without disrupting prior pieces that were already connected.
Alternatively, consider a Rubik’s Cube puzzle. We’ll use that to represent a type of hyper-connected complex system because moving one piece may cause a previously adjacent piece to move as well. If we shift our focus from manipulating the placement of individual pieces, as per how we successfully completed the interlocking puzzle, and instead we consider patterns of movements among sets of pieces, we can see something different: there are specific patterns of movements for reorienting each set of colored squares comprising the Cube. By learning the patterns of movements to execute, in order to reorient individual or sets of colored pieces, you can learn to solve the entire Rubik’s Cube. That remains true even if you don’t understand the full effect of what each move does to every piece in the Cube from every starting point.
Dynamic Alignment, the first Connective Pattern for Unknown Management. Given that Dynamic Alignment is at the heart of this post, I’ll elaborate a bit on the Why and How and What of Dynamic Alignment.
Why Dynamic Alignment:
An HBR article exposes an important issue for Leaders: “Why Visionary Leadership Fails” (Feb 27, 2019). The research presented in that article shows that the positive impact of visionary leadership breaks down when middle managers aren’t aligned with top management’s strategic vision. This can cause strategic change efforts to slow down or even fail. “[M]iddle and lower level managers … play a key role in carrying out strategic change… Managers’ strategic alignment cannot be assumed as a given.” (Ates, et al., 2019).
As a result, a mechanism for creating and sustaining alignment is a critical need for leaders. Add to that an additional fact stated at the outset, that the pace of change is accelerating, and we can quickly realize that the alignment itself will also need to be adjusted over time. That means the alignment must not only connect the entire organization, it must also be dynamic so that is can absorb the required adjustments in response to a change.
To achieve Dynamic Alignment, use OKRs as the operational model; aka Progressive Value Measures:
There are a few simple steps that enable leaders to leverage OKRs (Objective and Key Results) as an operational model; we refer to this as leveraging Progressive Value Measures
-
-
- Connect objectives as OKRs:
- tie the visionary leadership,
- to the teams,
- through middle management
- A web of OKRs emerges (Czuchry et al, 2019; 3 generations article)
- Operationalize execution and feedback:
- Don’t just use OKRs at a template,
- use them as feedback to dynamically adjust as execution occurs
- Connect objectives as OKRs:
-
The first step is to use OKRs as Progressive Value Measures for each Objective, represented via the 3-Question Template below, to explicitly depict the Objectives within the parts of the organization where you are focussed on creating alignment. Note that in practice, the creation of OKRs can be done incrementally, starting locally at any point in the organization. This is made possible through the second step.
The second step occurs when additional OKRs are added, and you connect them as a network. The network is created by connecting the respective Key Results (KRs) of the new and existing OKRs. Think of this as creating a spider “web” of OKRs, where the connections of the web are reflected through there respective KRs within each OKR.
The third step is what makes the alignment dynamic: capture and incorporate the feedback of execution, as it occurs, directly within the KRs of each OKR. Given the “web” has been created by properly connecting OKRs, the impacts are spread across the “web”of OKRs through the KRs. Finally, adjust the OKRs as applicable, based on the progressive feedback in the context of each OKR.
Using OKRs: begin with a 3-Question Template
-
-
- We’re working on … [Name / Initiative / Strategy]
- Because we believe … [Why / Impact / Objective]
- As measured by … [Key Results (needles for feedback)]
- Action (e.g., “increase”)
- Metric
- From – To
-
Why OKRs as an operational model for Adaptive Leaders
Using OKRs as an operational model to provide Progressive Value Measures, addresses three key things that are important for Adaptive Leaders:
-
-
- Unleashes Middle-Up-Down Management (Nonaka, 1988, Sloan Management Review),
- to accelerate information flow
- as the pace of change accelerates.
-
Note: the topic of how Middle-Up-Down Management fits into this approach is beyond the scope of this post, yet it’s still a good reference for readers who want to learn more.
Results of using OKRs as an operational model for developing Adaptive Leaders
The initial result is that leaders can address a traditionally vexing problem: the gap between strategy and execution. The more important result is that the operational model enables leader to “capture the value that matters, while it still matters”
-
-
- Instead of traditional: attempting to reduce the gap
- between leadership (strategy) and
- execution (teams),
- Positive disruptive impact: eliminate the gap…
- amplify the successful execution
- that furthers the strategy, and
- adapt the strategy based on success in the execution.
- To do that, need sustainable, dynamic alignment.
- amplify the successful execution
- Instead of traditional: attempting to reduce the gap
-
Operationalizing OKRs: feedback adaptation cadence
The final level of detail is incorporated into the system when the specific Action Plans are added in context; the context of the Action Plans is connected into the “web” of OKRs through ensure the Action Plan is targeted for a specific Key Result (KR) within the system. Some leaders ask why that is important. The reason it’s important is that if an Action Plan is not impacting a Key Result, why is the Action Plan being followed?
Here are the steps:
-
-
- Tie Action Plans to each KR
- Review and adapt on sub-interval cadence
-
Summary
There are 3 disruptive thoughts that change everything for Leaders, and enable them to become Adaptive Leaders:
- Unknown Management rather than Change Management
Adaptive Leaders shift
-
- From: dealing with “change management”
- To: embracing “unknown management”
- Connective Patterns rather than Best Practices
Leaders become adaptive when they shift
-
- From: best practices
- To: connective patterns
- Dynamic Alignment
- The first Connective Pattern for Unknown Management is Dynamic Alignment.
- Use OKRs as an operational model of Progressive Value Measure for Dynamic Alignment
- Dynamic Alignment is a key organizational capability in developing Adaptive Leaders
Why this matters to Adaptive Leaders who operate in today’s hyper-connected and accelerating-pace-of-change business climate, is that it enables them to increase their dynamic predictability of the results they will create, and through adoption in their organization they can “capture the value that matters, while it still matters”.
References:
Ates, N.F., Tarakci, M., Porck, J.P., van Knippenberg, D, and Groenen, P. (2019). Why Visionary Leadership Fails. HBR. retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/02/why-visionary-leadership-fails .
Czuchry, A.J., Jr. (1993). Toward a formalism for the automation of neural network construction and processing control. PhD Thesis. Georgia Institute of Technology.
Czuchry, A.J. Sr., Czuchry, A.J. Jr., and Czuchry, A.J. III. (2019). Adaptive Leadership Diagnostics: a conceptual framework drawing upon three generations of business leaders. Journal of Global Business Management. 15(2). 15-26.
Goldratt, E.M. (1984). The Goal.
Goldratt, E.M., and Goldratt-Ashlag, E. (2008). The Choice.
Nonaka, I. (1988). Toward Middle-Up-Down Management: Accelerating Information Creation. MIT Sloan Management Review. 29(3).
Snowden, D.J. and Boone, M.E. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review.
* There are several foundational theories that come into play; they are referenced here due to their relevance, yet discussing them is beyond the intended scope of this particular post.
- Complexity – Cynefin (Snowden)
- Systems Theory via Constraints and Controls
- Theory of Constraints (Goldratt, 1984)
- Inherent Simplicity (Goldratt, 2008)
- Constraint-Based Structured Systems (Czuchry Jr)