The Ambiguity Advantage

In the end, we are, as O’Shaughnessy¹ observed, either part of a new world’s dawning or part of an old world that is dying, and the only question for most leaders is: Which of the two worlds do you inhabit as an individual and as a leader? Are you part of the new world, with your dreams and inspiration, or are you part of the old world, which is, at this moment as you read this, being conquered and replaced even though you don’t see it? Are you really a mover and shaker?

James Macaleese opened the car door and sat in the driver’s seat. Anna, his wife, sat beside him in the passenger seat. They pulled away from the drive and headed for the city.

Trying to encapsulate and define ambiguity is difficult. As noted in Chapter 2, ambiguity is itself ambiguous by its very nature. One reason for this is that the experience of ambiguity is a fairly subjective one and consequently does not affect everyone in the same way. Indeed, in the next chapter, while exploring individual responses to ambiguity, we note that some people are fully aware of a particular ambiguity while others are totally unaware of the existence of that ambiguity. As we have seen in the previous chapter, simply defining and hence recognizing an ambiguity is paradigm-dependent, by which I mean that where an engineer might see uncertainty and a lack of data, a moral philosopher may see a clash of values — the thinking system is different in each case. In this and the following chapter, ambiguity and people’s responses to it are explored. Part of that exploration is to examine the structures or lack of structure in a variety of ambiguous situations. The attributes of each of the following types of ambiguity need to be explored:

The largest discrepancy between leadership talk and actual practice was found in what is labeled mode one technical leadership scenarios. Their view of leadership is that they are in charge, they have the knowledge and ability to use it and their subordinates (their language) do not. As a specific strategy, most mode one leaders said they actively kept information to themselves and away from other people in their domain, in the belief that only they have the overview necessary to make the decisions.

Mode two leadership scenarios are identifiable by a call for cooperation between the team members. The preoccupation of these leaders and teams is a drive toward teamwork and getting people to work together. Unlike mode one leaders, mode two leaders are interested in and actively seek the opinions of the team. They also promote cooperation with other teams and frequently endorse that they work in cooperation with their customers.

Mode three leaders are discernible by their concern with collaboration as opposed to the cooperative focus of mode two. The differences are that while mode two leaders focus on reducing conflict primarily by placing an emphasis on individuals burying their differences, mode three leaders recognize the differences between people and realize that conflict is an inherent and important part of life. The outcome of this is that mode three leaders spend considerable time dealing with and exploring conflict to enable individuals to work through the conflict and gain an understanding of themselves, how others see and react to them and further learn to appreciate the value of others through that conflict. Mode three is where diversity starts to become understood as a real strength and is accepted as part and parcel of work life. In short, these leaders are more able to adapt to local conditions and respond positively to change and conflict, moving into a new place rather than reacting by merely trying to control things.

The move from mode three to mode four leadership is, unlike the previous transitions, not linear, instead the transition to mode four is a seismic shift in thinking, beliefs, and behaviors, a true paradigm shift. Mode four leaders see, analyze, and solve problems in ways that frequently cause others problems, as they often “break the rules” of the other three modes and yet can move easily to any of these, using their thinking approaches when necessary, and, if required, they can create new solutions fashioned from elements of each of the other modes. Additionally, mode four leaders are the most flexible and innovative of all leaders. They are like learning machines with the ability to create and evaluate new ideas, integrating them into current schemes of thinking, and can let go of knowledge that does not suit the current conditions. This ability to readily forgo previous learning that is not working in a current context or world sets the generative leader apart from all other leaders, who will hold onto obsolete learning in spite of clear evidence that even the knowledge of the past must die along with the old world that created it. In transition from mode three to four, leaders often start the transition out of three by trying any new leadership fad that offers solutions to their problems. Those who have the largest and most objective¹ capacity to learn will make the transition, those with a limited or more subjective capacity to learn and unlearn rapidly are unlikely to move into mode four.

In this chapter we explore the attributes of effective generative leaders that positively contribute to their success in solving problems in ambiguous situations and that allow them to gain the advantage. These lessons include:

This chapter describes some of the creative tools and defines some of the processes that can be employed to explore, reframe, and deal with any ambiguity and provide leaders with an array of options and opportunities in any situation. Based on the creative problem-solving process, this chapter examines the role and skills of divergent and convergent thinking for exploring ambiguous situations and producing opportunities.

This chapter examines the variety of techniques and attitudes that leaders can personally develop to give them the advantage in all ambiguous situations. These include:

We have covered many concepts during our journey of exploration of ambiguity and how great leaders take advantage from it. It should be obvious by now that at the moments of the most intense fear, the moments when there appear to be huge threats all around, when ambiguity is at its highest, when we know little and understand less, these are the moments of most potential for moving into a new world and taking the advantage. By their very nature, these are the times when the rules have yet to be written, when there is as yet no operational paradigm and therefore, by definition, these are the very situations that offer the most degrees of freedom to act, they invite explorers and creative thinkers — people not bounded and limited by previous historical modus operandi — to develop their “song’s new numbers, and things that we dreamt not before.”