Adaptive Leadership
This is a chapter from our book Futurework
– A Guidebook for The Future of Work
At first.
To discover new ways forward we have to learn how to lean into the discomfort. Adapting our perspectives and associated decisions to shift with agility in uncertain environments.
Behavioural change does not happen in an instant. Cultural transformations do not happen overnight. Too often organisations seem to expect that new processes can be embedded and skills gained through theory and communication alone. Particularly in cognitive-focused areas such as transformation and the future of work, where typically far more emphasis is placed on discussing the theory as compared to experiencing it in practice.
Change occurs by actively stepping forward into the future – by experimenting with new ways of thinking, leading and working. Equipping us to successfully and iteratively adapt and transform.
Adapt with Active Thinking
While theoretical exploration is a critical element of adaptation, it is too easily possible to examine new ideas without ever actively engaging with them. Which means that the ideas may be understood in theory but not actually in reality.
Active thinking involves moving new ideas into action much earlier than is typical – using reactions, responses and reflections to far better understand and adapt to new ways of working. Reflections on an experience after you have actually experienced it, are naturally far more insightful and accurate as compared to projections beforehand.
The power of this leap in thinking becomes apparent when applied to other areas of life. Imagine you have never been swimming and are trying to decide whether to take it up regularly.
Given the choice of two methods of thinking to make a decision, would you choose:
To research everything you can about swimming by reading reports, watching videos and meeting with others.
To go swimming.
As unlikely as the first option might seem in comparison to the second option, in business we have become overly conditioned to the first option being the norm. Entire reports are frequently written and significant decisions made without the people involved personally having any real experience of comparable situations on which to base their perspective or understanding. Having experience and expertise is not the same as having personally experienced a situation.
Methodologies such as agile and design thinking go some way towards shifting this, although not yet far enough. Typically they are seen as discrete ways of working, with the active thinking phases such as prototyping and testing approached as distinct stages rather than integrated adaptive ways of working.
Instead we can more fully think by doing.
Realise Research Is Not Experimenting
Researching passively is different to actively experimenting.
I used to think that if a quoted study was from a respected institution such as a prestigious university that meant that the results must be scientifically valid. Until I learnt that given these were academic educational institutes, it often meant that the study had been conducted by students using other students as subjects. Which is by no means certain to be reflective of wider society or of similar situations outside of the limited test environment.
This does not mean that research and data are of little value. Far from it. Research studies and the resulting information and insight are a vital element of society. They provide an important foundation for discovering new ways of evolving our approaches.
By experimenting. Actively adapting.
Not just reading. Passively absorbing.
Which is all too easy to do.
Research studies can be very reassuring. They feel very certain. Factual. Thereby reducing risk.
The reality is frequently very different. Data can be just as misleading as it is enlightening.
In fact over 49% of us make decisions using inaccurate data.
See what I did there?
Despite having just shared thoughts that made it almost impossible to credibly support my perspective with data, I suspect I still did. Reflect back on how you instinctively responded to the use of the 49% statistic – chances are that it had the effect of adding a level of credibility. Reassurance. Risk mitigation.
More so than if I had written something vaguer like, “In my experience some of us make decisions using inaccurate data.” Still a credible point perhaps, but without the certainty and precision that numbers add.
Or more precisely – that numbers seem to add.
The use of a specific number makes the statement feel precise. Even though that could hardly be further from the truth – because the use of ‘over’ allows plenty of scope for imprecision.
51% imprecision… to be precise.
The true story might be that all of us (100%) make decisions using inaccurate data. Particularly as no frequency context is stated – clarifying whether it means once in a lifetime or perhaps on a daily basis.
Alternatively the same data point of ‘over 49%’ could mean something vastly different – that just half of us (50%) make decisions using inaccurate data. Which means if you were wanting to make a counter argument the very same statistical fact could be used to persuasively state almost the exact opposite – “almost 50% of us make decisions using accurate data.”
In reality, given that in the course of our lifetime we make many decisions, sometimes with accurate data and inevitably sometimes with inaccurate data – the seeming precision of 49% becomes almost meaningless.
Which requires adapting the way we view the world.
We can adapt and learn to interpret data and statistics with greater perspective and contextual awareness. Instead of blindly viewing data as absolutes, we can choose to view the information as guidance signals – that can shift and change meaning depending on the perspective the statistics are being viewed and interpreted from.
Critical yet not absolute. Like being guided by the lights of others travelling around us through the fog of the future, providing moving signals to help guide us ahead.
Sensing our way forward. While realising things can shift and change.
Always ready to adapt.
Moving forward by changing
.noitceriD
Leadership in Action
Adaptive
It is no coincidence that the words experience and experiment are just two letters apart.
When scientists develop theories, they then move their theories into practice by designing experiments to empirically test the validity of their thinking. Not only do they seek to prove their theory, typically they are actively seeking to disprove their theory in order to progress closer to the truth.
Within business and organisations the most complex theoretical discussions and decisions can be reduced to practical experiments to experience firsthand the potential outcomes. Enabling better decisions to be made through deeper understanding.
Try doing this with an aspect of your work. You might like to begin with something where there is an obvious experiment. Alternatively you could challenge yourself with a more complex initiative where the experiment is less obvious.
For instance while planning a group communication, you might send an early draft version to someone. Not as a draft to gain feedback on but as a test version of the actual message. Seeing what response results. Enabling you to adapt your approach based on real-world data rather than theoretical projections.
Summary
Adapting requires being comfortable with ideas that do not make sense – at first.
Active thinking involves experiencing new ideas in reality.
Too often reports are written and decisions made without the basis of real experiences.
Researching passively is different to actively experimenting.
Experiment with an aspect of your work to test your thinking.