Various acronyms attempt to capture how strategic decision-making and the management landscape have evolved in recent years. The most popular, VUCA, stands for volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity—characteristics that certainly define today’s world.
The use of other, newer acronyms can add further insights. BANI highlights brittle systems (fragile and easily broken), anxious environments (heightened levels of worry), non-linear dynamics (unexpected and unpredictable events), and incomprehensibility (difficulty in making sense of the world). RUPT indicates rapid change, unpredictability, paradoxes (seemingly contradictory forces), and tangled interconnections. Given the installation of the new Trump administration in the United States, this last acronym might soon need to be updated to RUPTT.
Regardless of which acronyms you use, we can all recognize that the decision-making environment has radically changed. Many leaders now recognize that traditional strategic decision-making methods are no longer effective. Instead, an emergent decision-making process is needed—one that requires leaders and decision-makers to embody a fundamentally different approach and new ways of being, thinking, and acting.
After having facilitated many emergent decision-making processes, it has become clear to me that six essential stances are required for success, particularly among process and team leaders. Here, “stance” refers to a physical, intellectual, or emotional attitude or way of being.
STANCE 1—Resolution: Autobiographical leadership books written by successful CEOs often celebrate the importance of relentless drive—pushing oneself and others toward high performance, stretching limits, and achieving bottom-line results. As you read them, you can almost begin to feel inadequate (and not true leadership material) if you actually want to take your full annual vacation, take a lunch break away from your desk, turn your phone off occasionally, or sleep more than four hours per night.
The stance of resolution is indeed essential. It is the stance of action—suggesting setting goals, holding people accountable, and ensuring discussions lead to tangible outcomes.
With that said, being over-reliant or “stuck” on resolution is dangerous. If it becomes our only way of operating and we cannot step out of it as required, we risk short-cutting or derailing the entire emergent decision-making process and we end up with poor, uninspired decisions with minimal buy-in.
Some people naturally embody resolution, while others find it challenging. However, as Amy Cuddy’s work on “power posing” suggests, resolution can be cultivated. We all need to be able to access our inner Superman or Wonder Woman when the moment calls for it. The challenge, as leaders, is that we also need to learn to be able to cultivate, develop, and seamlessly access the other five stances too.
STANCE 2—Openness: The second stance of emergent decision-making is about being welcoming, warm, and flexible and is often required as we begin to address a new issue, situation, or problem. Maybe we are launching in a new space, with a new group of diverse stakeholders, and we need to be open, empathetic, relaxed, and willing to embrace a new process, opposing points of view, and the need for change. We are seeking to engage openly with others and to gain a better understanding of the whole decision-making context or system. We need to authentically “go with the flow.” Openness suggests being porous and vulnerable.
STANCE 3—Edginess: This stance is where we explore a system’s boundaries, different people’s opinions, and the existing tensions and have a sense of curiosity about what currently exists. We find the known limits and seek to pierce through them. We push ourselves to let go of old patterns, structures, and ways of thinking and to “put on the table” and challenge our prevailing assumptions; we must struggle to break out of the status quo. We must learn to accept that the only way for the new to emerge is if we can let go of our need to have control, be right, and, as leaders, have all the answers. We need to “erase the whiteboard” clean. Edginess suggests a desire to break out of existing traditions and norms and the status quo.
STANCE 4—Abandon: The fourth stance is one of full release and liberation; it is having a sense of complete freedom where uninhibited creativity, intuition, and play take over. We are not in control; we are not out of control; we simply do not have or seek it. All self-consciousness is gone; an individual and group flow state is attained. Abandon suggests a complete loss of ego and of being free of any rules or models.
STANCE 5—Stillness: This stance is the pause before clarity. We are not trying to do or be anything. We are at a point where we must simply be silent and patient, accepting a feeling of emptiness and of “not knowing.” In Japanese terms, it is the ma (間), the liminal moment where we are empty and relaxed but fully present and grounded. We are fully accepting that we need to let the dust settle so that we can see clearly. We are at ease having space and stability and accepting not knowing. We need to have the confidence and trust that emergence will happen—if we allow it.
STANCE 6—Emergence: The final stance is all about being free and fully present to sense and capture what is emerging. It is the moment when new ideas, perspectives, and solutions crystallize. This is a time of appreciation and of generating insights before transitioning into action. We are generating everything on our recently cleaned and now empty “whiteboard.” Emergence is about being light, curious, and expansive.
Mastering the Stances
To successfully participate in an emergent decision-making process, at one time or another, we will need to be able to know when—and how—to quickly and seamlessly move between the six stances so that we model the physical, intellectual, and emotional attitude required at that moment. We will need to adopt some of the stances on multiple occasions as we move forward. The true master is the individual who can sense which one is required in real-time. This way of operating represents a new and hugely difficult challenge for many long-time leaders and decision-makers.
How do you recognize when your stance is inappropriate in any given moment? Your brain may sense it, but it is more likely that you’ll have a feeling or physical sensation that comes over you (if you’re listening for it) that tells you that something is “off” and not flowing as it should. It is often your interoceptive or exteroceptive awareness that will signal to you that you’re not in the appropriate stance.
Keep in mind that many of us naturally default to stay in our comfort zone, that is, the familiar stances that come naturally to us and that have served us well in the past. In addition, it should be highlighted that each stance has an undesirable polar opposite—an antithesis—with which many of us may also be associated, familiar, and comfortable. The opposite of resolution is procrastination; the antithesis of openness is to be closed, of edginess is bluntness, of abandon is control, of stillness is “losing it,” and of emergence is being “stuck.” These opposing stances represent the two extremes of six linear spectrums. Recognizing where and when we fall into these counterproductive modes is crucial for personal growth, professional development, and adding value and fully participating in effective emergent decision-making.
Above all, our starting point (a seventh stance?) must be our centre—grounded, present, and fully aware. After each stance, we must return to this centred position, ready to sense and adopt the next necessary stance. This ability—to continually shift between stances and then return to centre—is the key to leading successful emergent decision-making processes.
Risks of Mismatched Stances
Failing to adopt the appropriate stance at the right moment can slow down, limit, or completely derail a decision-making process. Common pitfalls include leaders
- being unwilling to let go of control and to enter the stance of abandon (i.e., unwilling to take the risk of looking foolish in front of peers);
- saying that they are open but remaining—or being perceived as remaining—closed;
- forcing edginess before the group has spent time in openness and developed a common intention, bond, or shared understanding of a system;
- misinterpreting stillness as wasted time;
- rushing to—and pushing for—premature resolution;
- failing to transition into the Resolution Stance at the end of the process, thereby leaving decisions unimplemented and fellow participants frustrated; and
- being unable to easily transition back to centre.
Every misstep weakens engagement, limits innovation, and increases the risk of poor outcomes. Simply put, the possibility of emergence is sabotaged and derailed.
Next Steps for Individuals and Executive Teams
Mastering these stances requires practice. The less we depend on those stances with which we are at ease—and the more we stretch into those that feel unnatural—the better. We need to become comfortable continually shifting from one stance to another—that is, transitioning to and from centre. Over time, we develop greater response-ability—the ability to respond in real-time and lead with sensitivity and agility.
In today’s VUCA, BANI, and RUPTT world, all executive teams need to develop a core competency in emergent strategic decision-making. To do so, leaders and team members must cultivate the ability to sense, centre, and shift stances together as needed through an emergent decision-making process. By doing so, they will be able to achieve their key objective: to make the best possible decisions with maximum engagement so that the right course of action is taken and they are successful.
The post The Six Stances of Emergent Decision-Making appeared first on Ivey Business Journal.
