How To Make Complexity An Advantage
Written by Ivo Brughmans (BE). Published by University Of Toronto Press in 2023
Vinyl records are still being bought a lot by youngsters, while streaming music online is so much easier. This is an example of a paradox.
The world is increasingly complex and paradoxical. Organizations face contradictory demands. Linear thinking struggles with that. Leaders need nonlinear, multidimensional thinking to leverage complexity. Complexity science studies emergent order in complex adaptive systems. It also studies organizations facing dynamic complexity and rapid change and how it creates paradoxes. Paradoxes are contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously. Common organizational paradoxes are collaboration versus competition and exploration versus exploitation. Paradoxes seem irrational but result naturally from complexity. Accepting paradox is the first step.
Tensions are strained relationships between interdependent opposites underlying paradoxes. Leaders should identify tensions and reframe them as paradoxes and take full use of them. Sources of tension include diversity, change, innovation and globalization, which are intensifying.
Traditional linear thinking uses binary either/or logic, choosing one side of a paradox. Paradoxical thinking combines contradictions using both/and logic. Leaders must flexibly shift mindsets between frames to hold paradoxes. With either/or thinking, paradoxes force tradeoffs and compromises.
Pure either/or thinking focuses entirely on one pole, like short-term operations or ungrounded innovation. This can’t last as both poles are needed. The first step toward paradox is creating a small niche for the weaker pole, separated in time or space. This “exhaust valve” releases tensions while maintaining control. But it also seeds future synergy.
Traditional linear thinking uses binary either/or logic, choosing one side of a paradox. Paradoxical thinking combines contradictions with both/and logic. Leaders must flexibly shift mindsets between frames to hold paradoxes. With either/or thinking, paradoxes force tradeoffs and compromises.
Pure either/or thinking focuses just on one pole, like short-term operations or ungrounded innovation. This isn’t sustainable as both poles are interdependent. The first step toward paradox is creating a niche for the weaker pole, separated in time or space. This “exhaust valve” releases tensions while maintaining control, but also seeds future synergy.
As tensions build, leaders realize neither pole alone suffices. The next step is compartmentalization – formally separating the poles into different units, projects or roles. This allows focus without interference. But walls between silos limit information sharing. Reinforcing cycles within silos can also lead to extremes.
With both/and thinking, differences are seen as complementary, not contradictory. Leaders accept and combine opposites. This starts by identifying connections between poles. Even with compartmentalization, poles are still linked. Tensions and paradoxes that cannot be solved can only be balanced. Recognizing this interdependence allows leveraging tensions. Creating a paradoxical solution brings together both poles in their purest undiluted form and op-
timally exploits their synergies without obstructing each other.
A polarity is a pair of interdependent forces. They can be physical or mental, in our minds. Paradoxes, separated solutions and compromises are reactions to polarities and handle them in different ways.
Paradoxical solutions are typically used to address the mental opposing forces, those that are in our minds. Two radically opposing physical forces, as they tend to collide, obstruct each other, and build up destructive tension. For instance, imagine pressing the brake pedal and accelerator of your car simultaneously. However, human intentions can coexist without destroying each other. For example, when devising a change plan, you can prioritize speed while building new technical infrastructure and slow down when it comes to getting everyone on board with the new process.
Formulating conflicting demands as a paradoxical challenge can be a powerful source of innovation. For instance, how can we create unity in a team while also allowing for diversity? How can we build close partner relationships while also increasing our own autonomy? These seemingly contradictory demands force us to think beyond the obvious and break our assumptions in search of new possibilities.
While paradoxical solutions may be something to strive for, they are not always feasible or desirable. Such solutions require a lot of energy and creativity to hold both poles together. As such, compromises and separated solutions may be useful alternatives.”
Thinking in terms of continuums, not binaries, helps hold paradoxes. Don’t deny the interdependence. Rather than either/or extremes, poles represent ends of a spectrum. Leaders can then find middle ground. Compromise solutions partially meet both demands. But they don’t fully satisfy either pole and sacrifices still occur.
Or be even more creative and bring them into a new, integrated form. This is the highest level. It is creative synergy when opposites are pursued simultaneously through integration. This leverages tensions, finds new connections and moves beyond tradeoffs. Synergy requires reframing differences as complementary and embracing diversity. It leads to new shared goals and win-win strategies.
The paradoxical leadership model balances four interrelated capabilities: accepting paradoxes, discovering tensions, shifting perspectives, and unleashing creativity. Flexibly applying these skills allows handling complex paradoxical challenges.
Paradoxical leaders reframe tensions as natural, inevitable and even helpful. Tensions provide energy, highlight interdependencies and can spark creativity. Leaders should channel tensions to inspire experimentation, openness and learning.
Tensions are reframed as fuel. They drive change and realignment, keeping the organization from stagnating. Tensions stretch and strengthen organizations, stimulating new ideas. Leaders should normalize tensions to reduce anxiety and defensiveness.
Tensions are accepted as an essential part of organizational life. They are monitored to identify needs and opportunities. Leaders should articulate paradoxes, explaining inherent tensions, to provide clarity.
Structured processes help productively channel tensions. Scenario planning considers multiple futures. Devil’s advocacy and red teaming encourage constructive critique. Controlled experiments create safe spaces for innovation.
Paradoxical wisdom combines broad perspective, humility, empathy and tolerance for ambiguity. It develops through self-reflection, diverse experiences, and surrounding oneself with different views. Wisdom enables calmly holding paradoxes without anxiety or indecision.
Wisdom comes from learning by doing. Leaders should continuously test themselves against real paradoxes. They should reflect on failures as valuable learning experiences. Diverse, contradictory perspectives are actively sought out to develop wisdom.
Leaders should cultivate paradoxical wisdom at three levels. Individual wisdom comes from self-knowledge, reflection and growth. Relational wisdom develops by improving social skills. Collective wisdom arises when teams integrate diverse views. Wise leaders foster growth at all three levels.
The world is becoming more and more ambiguous. We’re overwhelmed with vague information. And because of technology everything evolves faster and we’re expected to react faster. We’re also more connected. We need to work with people across different geographies, disciplines, and organizations. And increasingly our customers are expecting everything, any place, here and now.
On the other hand the world is also becoming increasingly VUCA (Volatile, Unpredictable, Complex, and Ambiguous), leading to more polarization, black-and-white thinking, political and religious extremism, ultra-nationalism, authoritarian leaders, and outright dictators. These are two sides of the same coin and both answers to the same question: how to cope with this VUCA world. One way of dealing with it is to return to the “old” world where things used to be more simple, clear, and less confusing. This involves following single-minded and infallible leaders who give us the illusion of being safe and protected against all these external threats. However, these simple solutions may sound appealing in the short term but can never match the increasing complexity of our world in the long term. The other way is much more challenging because it entails embracing complexity and ambiguity, allowing tensions and discomfort, and going beyond the safety of simple one-liners, dogmatic prescriptions, and straightforward solutions. We must think multidimensionally.