Conversations about the Six paradoxes of leadership
A lot of my writing recently has been dedicated to the lack of quality of leadership in the world. People from all walks of life continue to wonder if we have the leaders we need to help us through these very challenging times. Is it that the ability to nurture and identify leaders suddenly disappeared, that people are being much more demanding than before, or have the demands on leaders changed?
Because of the extreme issues organizations, cities and countries are facing (we identify them under the acronym ADAPT) leaders need to exhibit a completely different set of capabilities.
Society did not work to grow these capabilities in leaders in the past because the challenges outlined in ADAPT are recent and they require leaders to balance stylistic preferences that can seem at odds with each other.
These apparently irreconcilable dichotomies were originally described in my article Six paradoxes of leadership. To help continue to bring them to life, I would like to introduce a set of videos in which I interview PwC leaders across the Network about how to navigate these paradoxes and build the capacity to manage the tensions inherent in them. Let’s meet the leaders.
Tech-savvy humanist
Consider the response to disruption in light of the other elements of ADAPT. Given the increasing importance of technology, every leader today needs to become increasingly tech-savvy. On the other hand, there is a growing and quite legitimate concern that technology is changing who we are as human beings, how we interact with each other and the legitimacy of the systems in which we operate. As an example, consider the concerns about social media and its impact on effective government. Think of the most technology-oriented people you know, do some have limitations in their understanding of human systems and people? And the most people-oriented ones, do some of them have limited knowledge of technology? We need to find a way to help each side bridge this divide and become much better at understanding both elements of the human/technology equation.
Globally-minded localist
One implication of the trends reflected in ADAPT is that people around the world are generally more anxious and concerned about their own and their children’s future. In such times, people close in; seeking others like themselves and focusing on issues closer to home. In addition, many of the issues raised in ADAPT are best solved locally. At a national or international level they seem intractable, or at least opinions are so polarized that it is hard to get agreement and drive action. As a result, all leaders need to take a greater focus on things more local. Presidents and Prime Ministers need to focus on the needs of their own country first; Mayors and local leaders their cities or villages first; general citizens the places in which they work and live first. Not doing so risks losing those you lead and missing where the action is best focused for the moment. However, the atmosphere, oceans, and pathogens are indifferent to borders; there still remains significant economic interdependence; how we adapt technology to help us be more human is a pan-national issue; and there are still dramatic disparities across the globe that need everyone’s attention.. This last point is not just a selfless concern. Very , very poor countries have citizens who emigrate, legally or not, and tend to engage in wars that cross their own borders. We cannot escape each other’s problems. Thus, it is important for leaders to be able to hold in themselves two apparently contradictory mindsets: a deeply local preoccupation with an astute global awareness and concern. I assume all of us know a strident globalist who simply cannot understand why we would put our own villages, cities, provinces or countries first; or an impassioned localist/nationalist who wishes the outside world would just go away. The most significant leaders cannot make such a choice and need to be able to balance a global mindset with local focus.
Strategic Executor
As someone who is charged with strategy this last paradox is a bit humbling. Things are moving too quickly for us to be able to sit back, review the world, debate at length and suggest a grand vision to be reviewed some five years later — Vision 2020 or 2025 is a thing of the past. Yet, there are extremely long-term trends and intermediate-term issues that need to be prepared for in response to the immediate pressures and very significant short-term issues. The key is to not separate execution from strategy. There is a need to execute with the future in mind; or strategize through and while executing. This need is not just a consequence of the pace and rate of change, but is also about being adaptive. Any strategy today, no matter how well thought through, is wrong in part. Sensing and adapting is essential. But simple execution without a focus on the very profound trends that are coming like tidal waves and need specific capabilities to address them is most likely to lead to significant future challenges for the organization being led. I am sure you all know someone who is executing brilliantly against the present pressures, but headed for a trainwreck as they fail to consider the long-term implications of their decisions, or someone well focused on the future who will not be allowed to get there because they are not succeeding against the present demands or simply cannot execute on their vision. Present success and future vision both executed brilliantly and together are essential today.
Humble Hero
In uncertain, complex and challenging times people look to a leader to provide some sense of direction or certainty. This desire presents a tough challenge for the leader: they are asked to provide clarity in the moments when even for the leader things are least clear. This is not an inappropriate desire on the part of people; some sense of direction is essential in dynamic times. To step out and suggest a path forward takes real courage when we are unsure of the right path. This is the heroic part of the paradox. At the same time, however, the leader needs to acknowledge they could be wrong and learn from early steps in the process and seek a great deal of input both before stepping out and throughout the process. Without the humility to acknowledge that this is a best guess based on available information that will be reviewed and adjusted as needed, the leader risks taking the organization or institution they lead down the wrong path. And, even if it is the correct path, continuous adjustments will be essential as factors in the environment change. It is the element of humility that people are referring to when they suggest a leader needs to reveal some vulnerability today. It does seem paradoxical to suggest someone needs to be humbly/declarative or vulnerably/courageous, but they must. I am sure everyone reading this has met or seen someone declaring truth with little sense of humility, or freezing and managing only what is immediately in front of them instead of suggesting a way forward. Both responses present significant problems for those who follow.
Traditioned Innovator
In times like those we are in innovation is essential. All organizations need to transform, not just once, but probably continuously in this rapidly changing world. But, what about tradition? Why not just break things and move on? We cannot just throw out all that went before for a host of reasons. Firstly, some elements of society need to remain at least partially intact for things to work at all. Imagine radicalizing all elements of governance, education, markets, policing and defense at the same time, with no regard for keeping things on the rails. While some may hope for such an outcome, all of history reveals that the result is not pleasant. Secondly, some elements of existing institutions and organizations are quite useful and appropriate for the future. Finally, as a leader of any existing organization, if a complete rejection of the extant model is called for then best to start greenfield rather than let an organization with a lot of people’s livelihoods, investments and benefits just fade away. So, what is the alternative? It is simply to respect the critical elements of that which came before and adapt to meet the challenges of the world we live in today. This paradox entails the somewhat Confucian suggestion that leaders remember they have a host of those who came before sitting on their shoulder watching what they are doing, simultaneously reminding them of what came before, while not destroying their legacy through inaction. I suspect all of us know someone whose mantra is to break things completely in order to innovate, typically this results in things not sufficiently well thought through with damaging consequences unforeseen by the innovator; or someone unable to make the essential changes necessary to adapt because they are too enamoured of the past.
High-integrity politician
For all leaders, the number and diversity of constituents relevant to respond to the issues arising from ADAPT has grown immensely. This requires those leaders to engage in more negotiation, coalition formation, and idea integration. But, the decline in trust and increasing uncertainty inherent in the challenges leaders face asks leaders to exhibit integrity and a commitment to a goal that is larger than their own self-interest; without it they will lose the trust essential to lead and make change. Think of leaders you consider extremely politically-savvy, but worry a little about their motives; or leaders you consider ethical rocks who have trouble including other, divergent views. It is not impossible to be a high-integrity politician, just very, very hard; and now also essential.
Learn more about the Six paradoxes of leadership here.
PwC refers to the PwC Network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.
