Unity of Vision and Diversity in Strategy
Complexity and Dao Series #6
Strategic conversations answer the two key questions of strategy: Where are we going? How will we get there?
In strategy conversations, it is often difficult to find ‘true north’. Without the ‘true north’, team members working on the strategy are like sleeping in the same bed but are having very different dreams.
- Ed Morrison, founder of Strategic Doing
Strategic Doing, both as a discipline and a practice, has profoundly influenced my approach to leading change. The first question, “Where are we going?”, revolves around vision — a shared understanding of our “true north,” our collective dreams. The second, “How will we get there?”, delves into strategy. Often, the pursuit of effective strategies is hindered by the absence of a shared vision — a scenario akin to differing dreams in Morrison’s analogy.
Moreover, teams may encounter further challenges when lacking a shared comprehension of their current reality — a situation similar to individuals not sharing the same bed. To address this challenge, Peter Senge’s concept of “creative tension” proves illuminating. Creative tension represents the gap between current reality and desired future. These two points form the outline of a journey to guide strategic exploration. By acknowledging this tension and fostering shared understanding among team members, organizations can ensure that all members are metaphorically “sleeping in the same bed” and “sharing the same dreams” before embarking on strategy development.
Otherwise, the left hemisphere’s grabbiness, as illustrated by Iain McGilchrist’s groundbreaking work on the brain, can quickly turn a strategic conversation into debate about the smallest details. A colleague recounted a scenario where a discussion on employee retention strategies digressed into debates over the dimensions of a ping pong table. While the dimensions are pertinent considerations, they overshadowed broader questions about the overarching strategic direction. Further, the bigger contextual background that gave rise to the conversation is completely out of the picture. This simple story is an excellent example of mistakes many strategic efforts make: lost in the diverse pathways while forgetting the intention of the journey that started the exploration.
The left hemisphere needs certainty and needs to be right. The right hemisphere makes it possible to hold several ambiguous possibilities in suspension together without premature closure on one outcome.
― Iain McGilchrist, The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World
To arrive at a place of unity, teams must navigate cycles of divergence and convergence for both vision and strategy. Charting a path forward is as challenging as finding “truth north”. The divergence cycle acknowledges the strength of diversity, while the convergence cycle harnesses the power of unity.
Many strategic efforts falter when they overly prioritize strategy at the expense of a unified vision. Unity in vision acts as the cornerstone that harnesses the inherent diversity in crafting effective strategies, ensuring coherence throughout. An analogy drawn from nature — a tree — aptly illustrates this concept: just as firmly grounded roots support a tall and expansive tree, unity in vision provides the groundwork for diverse strategies to thrive. According to biological principle, the biomass of a tree above ground cannot exceed that below ground. Similarly, in the pursuit of effective strategies, the force of unity in vision is essential to harness the potential of diversity and arrive at coherence.
Addressing conflict is crucial in navigating the divergence and convergence cycles of strategic change. Encouraging diversity in strategy formulation fosters creativity and innovation. Conflict, often a natural byproduct of diversity, can be productive. However, conflicts risk becoming counterproductive when teams lack a shared understanding of their needs and vision. In such cases, teams find themselves in “groan zones,” where conflicting ideas create discomfort similar to indigestion. They may settle for suboptimal solutions to alleviate tension or risk breakdown from the pressure. Transforming these “groan zones” into “growth zones” is essential for teams undergoing strategic changes, with unity in vision playing a pivotal role.
Drawing from Marshall Rosenberg’s “Nonviolent Communication,” conflict arises from differing strategies rather than conflicting needs. Within this framework, all needs are acknowledged and respected. Establishing connections based on shared needs enhances our ability to develop effective strategies. Vision, in this context, signifies a future where identified needs are addressed satisfactorily.
Regardless of our many differences, we all have the same needs. What differs is the strategy for fulfilling these needs.
-Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg
To illustrate, consider a recent dialogue I had with the program manager of a large science team I consult with. During our conversation, we identified the need to address their data management practices. This encompassed various aspects, including technical procedures in the publishing process and cultural factors related to researchers’ identities and assumptions about their roles in the research ecosystem. Recognizing these needs, we formulated a vision that encompassed both improvements in specific practices and cultural shifts that are more fitting to the new field this institute is creating. Our strategies included targeted training initiatives to address technical aspects and initiatives aimed at fostering cultural change, such as establishing coaching circles and generating awareness of researchers’ assumptions about their roles. However, when presenting our proposal to senior leadership, they suggested hiring another technical expert instead.
Faced with this conflict, I opted to build shared understanding of the team’s needs rather than advocating for our strategy. Emphasizing additional cultural needs beyond technical aspects, I fostered openness to support strategies aimed at cultural change. In this instance, the tension stemmed not from diverse strategies but from a lack of unity in understanding the team’s needs and visions, highlighting the need for concerted efforts in this area.
Systems get into patterns of relating. The patterns are not linear — all parts are connected and related through circular feedback and co-creation. — Joan Lurie
Role relations represent another critical dimension in this exploration. According to Joan Lurie, strategic initiatives often stumble due to a failure to encourage role reframing and pattern shifting, ultimately resulting in dysfunctional organizational systems. Lurie’s perspective emerges from Orgonomics, also known as organizational ecology, which conceives of organizations as complex networks of relations engaged in continuous patterns of interaction and change. Departing from traditional views centered on organizational structure, Orgonomics delves into the embodiment of roles and the design and support of role relations. In today’s fast-paced landscape, fostering the ability of role relations to adapt, disrupt, and redefine themselves is paramount for effective change leadership and transformation. I argue that fostering a sense of unity of identity serves as a foundational element in this endeavor.
One of my mentors, MinMing Wang, formerly the senior VP of leadership at Alibaba, described a four-day bootcamp he developed for all new Alibaba employees as functioning similarly to a pressure cooker. According to Wang, “After the four days together, a new whole is born that did not exist before. Everyone’s relative position to the whole is changed, as well as everyone’s relative position to each other. Those who adapt best to the new situation quickly rise into leadership roles, while those who remain unchanged are left behind.”
The “new whole” Wang refers to represents the unity found in a collective identity, which transcends individual ego. Within this collective identity lie elements such as purpose, intention, vision, and outcomes. This unity serves as a powerful attractor for role relations to re-pattern and evolve within the new context that gives rise to the collective identity.
The ‘ladder of abstraction’ framework provides a valuable lens through which to understand the relationship between unity of vision and diversity in strategy.
As we ascend the ladder, the focus shifts to the ‘why’ — the underlying purpose and vision driving our actions. Conversely, as we descend, the focus shifts to the ‘how’ — the practical implementation and execution of our strategies. This framework can be likened to an inverted tree, with the deeply rooted ‘why’ providing stability and nourishment for the expansive branches of ‘how.’ Just as a tree’s above-ground biomass is dependent on its root system, the effectiveness of our strategies is contingent upon the clarity and coherence of our vision and purpose. By prioritizing the ‘why’ in strategic discussions, we can foster a more expansive and inclusive dialogue, allowing for the exploration of diverse pathways and solutions.
This approach aligns with the principles of the ‘job-to-be-done’ framework, emphasizing the importance of thoroughly understanding the problem before seeking solutions. In the words of Albert Einstein, ‘If I were given one hour to save the planet, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it.’ This underscores the critical role of clarity and alignment in driving effective strategic action.
To navigate complexity effectively, individuals often find themselves ascending and descending the ladder of abstraction multiple times within a single conversation. This process involves weaving together the unity offered by high levels of abstraction at the top of the ladder with the diversity provided by the myriad contextual details at the bottom.
This wisdom extends to individuals navigating their personal journeys. When confronted with frustration stemming from a single-minded approach, stepping back to realign with one’s purpose and exploring complementary strategies can yield significant breakthroughs. Personally, grounded in my dedication to integrating complexity thinking into contemporary organizations, I’ve expanded my spheres of influence beyond my immediate professional realm. Strategies such as engaging in communities of practice, scholarly pursuits, mentorship connections have not only reinforced my commitment to purpose but also propelled me beyond the confines of a rigid, singular approach.
In today’s fast-paced world, where change can leave us feeling disoriented, unity in vision and purpose offers a grounding force amid the whirlwind. Unity and diversity are not mutually exclusive; rather, they complement and reinforce each other, akin to the Yin/Yang principle. As teams and organizations navigate towards a coherent future, unity in vision can synergize with the diversity of strategies, fostering collaboration, abundance, and collective empowerment. In embracing this dynamic balance, we shift from a paradigm of scarcity, competition, zero sum game and power struggle to one of abundance, collaboration, positive-sum games and co-creative approaches.
