Leading in Messy Situations | Ep. 98 | The Science of Leadership

Daniel Atlin, guest · [02:44]It's really, quite an interesting sort of, sort of story. I, I was working in these complex institutions, and I call them as complex because they've got multiple stakeholders, they have multiple ROIs, they're dealing with a lot of, you know, external sort of funding as well. So, so they're, they're, they're not the traditional ones where you could say, you know, this, you're making a project, you're making a widget, you know, you know, you're delivering on, on certain results. And I saw that, especially in universities, which I think are one of some of the most complex organizations on the planet, that leadership was really difficult. And people expected leaders to be able to, I say, you know, do that little bit of what you described in the early on, you know, in the intro, be in a straight line, so sort of, you know, have, have, have a great idea, implement things quickly, and that's not the case. So I really wanted to find out, you know, really what's more about, the nature of, of leadership, how actually, you know, leaders can actually, you know, perhaps survive and thrive in this type of environment and actually bring about change. So, so that's what led me to going back to school, after a break of, you know, close to forty years. So, so I went back to school and, and, surprisingly, I really quite enjoyed it. And, and I ended up, you know, interviewing these leaders, across the, you know, the Anglosphere, what I call it, and, you know, came up with, with, an understanding that, you know, these leaders don't know the answers. They actually just use an approach. And that, and that's what I sort of learned was an approach that they use to be able to be successful. Successful in their jobs and thrive in the uncertainty. So I changed that question. It wasn't about, you know, how they, how they actually bring about change. It was actually more about how they actually survive their ever-changing and dynamic, complex system that they're working in. So that's, that's what led me to the development of, of my framework.

Daniel Atlin, guest · [05:17]Very much so. And, and, you know, what I found is actually it's, it's basically these leaders are continuously going through a process, and that's actually making sense of their situations, their context, their environments around them in real time. And, they're doing that, that, sort of on two levels, Tom, you know, first they're making sense of themselves, and, and I know you've spoken a lot about this on, on your show, about how leaders have to know, you know, you know, their own biases, they have to know, you know, their triggers as well, they have to know what they're bringing to the table from past learned experience that may be influencing their decisions, their approach, and they've got to in some ways, you know, be able to, I think, adjust that depending on the moment as well. So that self-knowledge is so important, and I call that, you know, making sense of yourself. And then at this other same time, they actually, cause they, they, they lead organizations, which are groups of people and, and, and complex stakeholders and things, they've got to make sense of others too. And, and they do that through a process of, of organizational sense making, which is, you know, they have to come back, do a lot of exploration and gathering, you know, the facts, the figures, and I say they have to come back and construct a map, which is sort of almost like a Google, Google map that's changing, you know, in real time and continually sort of have that map in mind, create a, a compelling story and narrative to be able to drive forward, and to really be able to, to, adapt as well and, and improvise as well as things change. So it's really trying to, to, to operate and lead in a decision that is continually fluid and changing and, and really being able to, to, to survive and, and, and, and putting aside that control actually. So I call it actually how they have to lead in the mess, cause it, the mess is the nature.

Daniel Atlin, guest · [07:10]Yeah, and, and I, I must admit that, you know, when I started, on, on, on, on my research, and when I came up with my dissertation, that, actually making sense for yourself wasn't a big part of it. But I've continued in discussions with leaders since then, and, I've met a few of them that have made me, you know, want to modify this, and, and they now understand the importance of actually this. And this is sometimes, I think, the unseen part of, of, of leadership, which is actually all the inner work that you have to do to show up. So, so, you know, what I realized, and through a couple conversations in particular, that these successful leaders really actually are, are, are very reflective. They're reflective, they, understand that they're one piece of, of a larger system, so they better be able to show up, you know, the best that they can in order to, to have the, the greatest sort of influence and impact on that system. And so, so, you know, it's, it's very, very important that they're, they're able to, in some ways, regulate their emotions and their responses, rather than actually sometimes, you know, you know, coming in, and, and, and going strong. They need to be able to, you know, lead with, you know, curiosity as well, asking questions rather than bringing the answers, because that's the way that you, you know, you, you demonstrate leadership, I think, in these complex, you know, situations as well. And they need to really be able to, to be aware of those parrots on their shoulder, which actually may be whispering things that, that, either you worked in your past and, and, and you're bringing to, to the present day to, as a tool, or else they're actually, you know, undermining you perhaps as well, because you may have imposter syndrome, or you may have, experiences in the past that, that have triggered you. So there's a lot of, of, of that that's so important to, to bring to the table as a leader, which I had missed initially, those nuances, but I brought them, further, up, up, up into the limelight, I'd say, you know, later on.

Daniel Atlin, guest · [09:39]Yeah, great question, Tom. Thanks so much. And, and I follow in, in, I guess, you know, very attached and, and, and really like the word messy because it actually, you know, came out through my discussions about, about, you know, what leaders were experiencing as they actually, you know, began their days and their approaches. And, and I realized that, you know, the leaders that actually think that they have a plan, you know, they're locked into these ideas. They're the ones that actually usually crash and burn in, in, in these complex systems like hospitals or universities. It's the ones that actually have realized that, you know, it, it is actually the, the nature of a university or, or these complex institutions to be messy. I draw back to, I'm, I'm sure you're aware of that, David Foster Wallace sort of, sort of, installation speak to Kenyon College, where he talked about, you know, what is water. And, and, I think so oftentimes leaders don't understand that, you know, their water that they're living in is actually mess. It really is all around you, that nothing is certain and it's all permeable. And of course we have to actually, you know, have framework. And bring some, you know, scaffolding to be able to get through that mess, but it is the nature of the organization. And what really pleased me was when I sent back my dissertation to some of the leaders that I sent, that I had interviewed, they actually said, thank you for naming this. Thank you for describing, you know, the actual nature of leadership in these organizations. They found that in itself to be sort of liberating. So mess to me is not pejorative, it's not a negative word, and it's also not something to actually try and get rid of, because you'll never get rid of it. So that's why that concept is actually so important and central to what I've been doing.

Tom Collins, host · [23:09]think that poor leadership in these complex situations actually arises as a result of somebody solving the wrong problem? Because they haven't identified the situation correctly.

Daniel Atlin, guest · [23:23]I think we're seeing a lot of times leadership seems to be, you know, addressing symptoms rather than actually, you know, the root cause, right? And it comes back to your source of medical analogy as well, I think. You know, in wicked problems, you know, the, the solutions require, you know, you know, a lot of, a lot of, people being brought to the table, probably, you know, from different perspectives and able to, to, to, to deal with part of that, that, that, that problem, because one single solution's not going to be able to achieve. And we're seeing that, I think, in, in, in, in governments and, in corporations and everything, everyone wants to actually treat symptoms, it seems, rather than actually really getting to, to, to the root of the problem. So I think it comes back to that rush, rush for action, right? That rush for action, that, that, the desire and belief that you actually have some control and agency, you know, in order to resolve things. Sometimes you have to slow down and realize that, you know, you're going to have a different approach, bringing more people to the table, maybe creating more coalitions, maybe actually, you know, slowing down, and dealing with these things. In Canada right now, we've got a very significant, you know, housing, housing problem, right? Where, where, where a lot of people are unhoused, they're on the streets for, for different reasons. And people think, well, you know, we can either just, you know, build houses and that will solve the problem, or else, you know, give people, money to be able to, to rent houses, when we have to actually take a look at the broader sort of socioeconomic and, and, and, and other issues that are actually driving that.

Daniel Atlin, guest · [30:14]Yeah, well, part of what, I think, you know, I would advise leaders to, you know, be vulnerable at times at the appropriate place, right? And say, you know what, I don't know what's going on, perhaps to some of their senior teams, and how we make sense of this together too, and gather the information to get a better picture, right? So I think sometimes, you know, recognizing that you don't have to have all the answers, you don't have to see everything is so important. So I encourage, you know, leaders to lead with, you know, curiosity by asking questions, but by also not trying to answer things that they don't have the best thought out, you know, response to as well. It's better not to have an answer than actually to actually claim something that isn't true. So I think encouraging them to really harness, I'd say, their curiosity, their ability to actually understand what they're seeing and what they're not seeing as well, who's missing from a conversation perhaps, whose perspective is not there, to be able to gather that enough information to be able to understand a situation. So there's that. And as you say, Tom, you're never going to have 100% of the data because it's impossible, you know, especially, you know, in the nature of where we are because things are moving so quickly. But you have to have enough information that you feel confidence that it's a plausible, you know, situation that you can actually, you know, choose a direction and choose some directions and set off going. You always have the ability to course correct. And I think that's another thing that leaders have to recognize is that, you know, course correction is not actually admitting failure. It's actually, again, it's part of the mess. You have to actually recognize that at times, you know, you may be heading off in a direction, you may be heading up north and you realize, you know, I got to go a little bit more east. So you have to do that. So I think getting leaders to understand that they actually have the ability to be able to shift and to change as well. Doesn't mean whipsaw changing direction 100% or 90 degrees, but doing small shifts that are very, very, you know, acceptable as a leader.