Management consultants are never short of jargon. That's not a surprise since they make a living out of them, but the latest addition to the seemingly never-ending list of jargon is interesting. At a recent closed-door leadership conclave of a large multinational corporation (MNC), the speaker said, "If you want to manage your organisation efficiently during these tough times, you have no option but to embrace disequilibrium'.
The effect of those words on the audience, comprising the top managers of the MNC, was predictable: barring a few know-alls, everyone looked confused. The consultant, however, is obviously used to this and proceeds to explain why embracing disequilibrium is a must for all leaders at this point of time. The jargon, he said, essentially means embracing an unstable situation to get the best from it, with the view that without some degree of urgency, implementing difficult changes becomes less likely.
Still confused? Here is something simpler. The traditional leadership model works when the problems being faced have known solutions and the work is really about managing people and processes efficiently. But since living with uncertainty is the new norm and the old notion of stability has metamorphosed into an era of constant change, there is nothing called known solutions.
So, human resources managers are looking for adaptive leaders who won't fall back on the patterns of successful models of the past and are willing to question which of the current models need to change. For, there is just no point waiting for things to return to normal in your organisation. Going forward, leadership will require new skills tailored to an environment of urgency, high stakes, and uncertainty, even after the current economic crisis is over.
That would obviously mean a sea change in the way corporate leaders function, and one of the critical elements in this is that they should be prepared to disappoint their own people in order to bring them out of their comfort zones. When faced with unsettling situations, organisations and employees have two choices - fight or flight. The latter obviously can't be a solution for any company that wants to survive the downturn and prosper in the future.
To be sure, it's not an easy task. The tricky question that leaders face is the extent to which you can disappoint your people, so that they shake themselves up and are willing to embrace change. In their book, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership, Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linsky call it the "productive zone of disequilbrium" - keep your hand on the thermostat. If the heat's too low, people won't make difficult decisions. If it's too high, they might panic. It is important to maintain the temperature just right - heat high enough for people to have difficult conversations and make difficult decisions but not so high that they are paralysed into a state of fear. Within the productive zone, the stress level is high enough that people can be mobilised to focus on and engage with the problem they would rather avoid.
It's a difficult task no doubt, but that's a balance that leaders of the future have to master. It's like a pressure cooker: set the temperature and pressure too low, and you stand no chance of transforming the ingredients in the cooker into a good meal. Set the temperature and pressure too high and the cooker top will blow off, spewing the ingredients of your meal across the room.
Thus, patience and persistence are required to lead adaptive change since most often leaders identify a problem that people around them either have not seen or have chosen to ignore since it would disturb the current stability. Future leaders will also have to anticipate and counteract tactics that people will use to lower the heat to more comfortable levels. This work avoidance can take numerous forms such as creating a new committee with no authority or finding a scapegoat. So, bringing about the changein a rush may have negative consequences.
It, thus, makes sense when the consultant compares it with finding out how to make your baby sleep. The perfect solution will come only after days and days of trial and error. It may be a frustrating experience, but a necessary one.
Some organisations are still making the mistake of thinking that the immediate crisis will blow over soon and there is no need for any large-scale changes. Leaders of these organisations should read Hiefetz, Grashow and Linsky's articles which explain why a future-proofing strategy is required. Consider the heart attack that strikes in the middle of the night. Relatives rush the victim to the hospital, where expert trauma and surgical teams stabilise the patient. The emergency has passed, but a high-stakes, if somewhat less urgent, set of challenges remains. Having recovered from the surgery, how does the patient prevent another attack? Having survived, how does he adapt to the uncertainties of a new reality in order to thrive?
Embracing disequilibrium is all about managing this phase.
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
