"What's Going On?" Leadership in Crisis.
In the words of Marvin Gaye, “What’s going on?” Leadership is in crisis, Marvin. That's what's going on.
As non routine challenges increase at their fastest pace in history and individual business performance declines, the most pressing question for leaders today is being able to explain reliably 'what's going on’ and provide clear direction. When leaders fail to answer Marvin's most basic question, the rest of us are left wasting time and money and burning out working on the wrong problems; creating suboptimal solutions that are best only for ourselves or our teams; or, worse, fighting amongst ourselves as we try to make everyone agree with our perspective. Tristan Harris, who some have called 'the closest thing Silicon Valley has to a conscience' summarized the issue best: “If we can’t agree on what’s true, then we can’t navigate out of any of our problems.
Sensemaking Substitutes
In a previous article, Sensemaking - The Hidden Advantage of Non Routine Leaders™, we introduced the necessity for leaders to become sensemakers in order to address the non routine dilemmas they are facing (unfamiliar, urgent, and complex issues where truth and reality are unclear). Unfortunately, leaders tell us that, when faced with a non routine challenge, they usually turn to one of four detrimental approaches, that we refer to as “Sensemaking Substitutes": intuition, team brainstorming, ‘expert consulants,’ or technology. While these approaches may be reliable in routine circumstances, placing full trust in them during non routine situations can be catastrophic as we shall see.
Why not Intuition?
The CMO was sure there was an advertising problem, when in fact there was a pricing problem. The CEO was certain there was a culture problem, when in fact it was an executive leadership problem. The COO was certain it was logistics problem, when in fact it was a brand problem. Each of these instances is from a case study for an organization where we were able to identify that faulty intuition was costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Said simply, intuition failures are measurably the bane of decision-making. In the words of Nobel-Prize winning economist Daniel Kahneman: "We are blind to the obvious…and blind to our blindness.”
A long line of philosophers, economists, and psychologists from Francis Bacon to Daniel Kahneman agree overwhelmingly about intuition. Simply put, our intuition is great in routine situations, but embarrassingly ineffective in non routine situations. Our successes in previous routine situations foster the illusion that we will understand and be successful in future, non routine scenarios (see hindsight bias). Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. When stress levels peak during non routine challenges and we rely on our intuition, we increase our use of harmful or misleading biases to make decisions that can lead to shockingly bad outcomes. To make matters worse, we are blind to how poor our decisions really are; and it’s costing our business far more than we realize.
Why not Brainstorming?
Ever since the publication of Alex F. Osborn’s influential book “Applied Imagination,” many leaders consider group brainstorming as their first option when faced with non routine challenges. Most of the leaders we interviewed believe brainstorming to be the most effective technique for generating creative ideas, especially when things are uncertain. This opinion persists despite repeated findings in routine and non routine scenarios, that group brainstorming yields poor quality results. This has been dubbed “the illusion of group effectivity” and has several causes.
Evaluation anxiety - the tendency to be criticized or negatively evaluated.
Social loafing - the tendency to rely on others.
Production blocking - the tendency to forget ideas, get confused while waiting for a turn to speak.
Downward matching - the tendency to match the performance of least productive member.
I probably receive the most push back on the suggestion that brainstorming is an inferior approach. We didn’t believe it at first either, but after primary and secondary research efforts, the facts are undeniable. In our primary studies, we’ve been able to duplicate the research several times over in real-world scenarios, as well as A/B experiments. Regardless of the time allowed, the facilitation style, or the level of complexity and unfamiliarity (non routine), individuals will consistently outperform their group-brainstorming counterparts. To give you an idea of the impact of a 20-minute brainstorm session, four individuals will out perform a four-person group with 4-5x the number of (non-redundant) ideas and 1.5-3x the quality of ideas (when measuring for both feasibility and originality).
Ultimately, a leader’s predilection for brainstorming can be traced to faulty intuition. In a non routine situation, we lean on brainstorming because we are fearful of the unfamiliar or the possibility of making a bad decision on our own merits. More specifically, a leader’s preference for brainstorming is the result of a bias known as ‘Base Rate Neglect,’ that even though your experience tells you four heads are better than one, you are overlooking the fact that four individuals are always better than a group of four—no matter how routine or non routine the challenge.
If you are looking for better results, there are a number of solutions. However, we have the best results when we think of brainstorm sessions as an individual exercise and evaluations as a group exercise. For example, the next time you encounter a non routine challenge, email your team ahead of time and ask them to schedule 30-60 minutes of their time to work on 5 unique ideas for the challenge at hand (provide a benchmark format and example if possible). Have them email their ideas to you prior to your group meeting. Now, the purpose of your meeting is no longer to come up with brand new ideas but to discuss, evaluate, and strengthen the already better ideas from your individual brainstormers.
Why not Experts?
Why shouldn't leaders "listen to the experts" in non routine situations? First and foremost, the increasing number of non routine challenges makes the delays and costs of turning to experts prohibitive. Second, we must also consider that non routine challenges affect experts as well. For example, no matter your political leanings, it is clear that the so-called expert pollsters got it wrong in 2020…again. Third, the complexity of the non routine calls into question whether specialized expertise is up to the task. Regarding COVID, for example, should we listen to the psychologist, epidemiologist, or the economist? Unfortunately, there is no 'all of the above' option when they disagree. Unfamiliarity preys on the expert as much, if not more than, the layperson (the old saying about only having a hammer means every problem looks like a nail [see functional fixedness bias]). Given these weaknesses, it is easy to see why the CDC, the WHO, Dr. Fauci, and the Surgeon General have had to change their assessments, sometimes dramatically so, on items such as mask-wearing and mortality rates in the face of this very unfamiliar virus.
Lawrence Gostin, professor of Global health law at Georgetown University summarized the early assessments of COVID well, “Myself and other public health experts, based on what the World Health Organization was saying, reassured the public that this was not serious, that we could bring this under control…We were giving [sic] a false sense of assurance.”
This is but one example among a myriad of others. Surveys that ask scientists about whether they have committed questionable research practices show a self-reported incidence of 33% — which jumps to 72% when scientists are asked how often they have witnessed this behavior in colleagues. The point is not to suggest that all experts are professional fabricators. It is simply to caution leaders from blindly trusting them.
In addition, the lines between experts and activists have become indistinguishable. For instance, at one time, academic experts proudly proclaimed that they would teach our next generation how to think, rather than what to think. Unfortunately, the reverse is true today, where experts are encouraged with strategies as to how to leverage their credentials to push social and political agendas; and sometimes in areas they are not credentialed at all. To be clear, this is not a tactic of the politically ‘left’ vs. ‘right.’ From Jordan Peterson to Noam Chomsky, the conflation of expertise and activism is pervasive in academia. Sometimes the motive is one of survival as your professional career is at stake. Many expert scientists feel the need to publish as much as possible, especially in high profile journals. And the number of pernicious examples of cutting corners is rising rapidly. The higher the profile of a journal, the larger the number of retractions. The old saying of “go where the data takes you,” has been replaced by “go where your intuition takes you;” or more insidiously, “go where the agenda takes you.”
Why not Technology?
Today, it is common to use technology to help you decide whom you will date this weekend or where you will live next year. It can also determine which marketing channels to use, which content to include, and which price points you should use to advertise. Technology may also decide which individuals you allow into your university program or who gets the job opening you recently posted.
A familiar problem returns—faulty intuition. Machines are not very different from humans in that AI is directed by data and experience. Any bias in these machine learning parameters or algorithms could negatively impact the decision of the machine itself or the humans who depend on it. Whether this bias is intended or not, the fact is, we can’t blindly trust technology as if it knows the truth. Data scientist Cathy O'Neil explained this in no uncertain terms in the popular Netflix special, Social Dilemma, saying that, ”People talk about Artificial Intelligence as if it will know truth. Google doesn’t have the option of saying 'Is this conspiracy? Is this truth?' Because they don’t know what truth is."
As for the intentional manipulation of its users’ perceptions and other nefarious uses of technology, Harvard Professor Shoshana Zubogg, unabashedly explained that social media platforms like Facebook pride themselves in their abilities to affect your decisions without you realizing it. “They discovered that they were able to affect real-world behavior and emotions without ever triggering the user’s awareness.”
Tristan Harris echoed this unsettling act of manipulation when he explained the capabilities of social media platforms today. “It’s not enough that you use the product consciously. [They] wanna dig down deeper into the brain stem and implant, inside of you, an unconscious habit, so that you are being programmed at a deeper level. You don’t even realize it.”
In summary, all of these approaches to understanding reality—intuition, brainstorming, experts, and technology—have made it abundantly clear that they lack the ability or the integrity to explain “what’s going on” and make sense of reality. Unlike Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method) whose intent was to control and conquer nature, the desire of many people today is no longer only that, but to also control our perceptions of reality and so manipulate our opinions.
Be the Sensemaker
Surely, I am not proposing that we eliminate science or any of the four approaches altogether. The main point I'm making is this: Leadership is in Crisis. In a day and age where we have more and easier access to technology, expertise, and collaboration, reality is becoming more complex and more contentious instead of easier to understand.
So the question remains, how can leaders navigate today’s increasingly non routine challenges and explain “What is (truly) going on?”
The research is clear. The #1 indicator of leadership effectiveness today is sensemaking, meaning the ability to make sense of a non routine situation. Whether you are a leader of a small business, a Fortune 500 organization, or a nonprofit, it is your responsibility to answer Marvin Gaye's question, “What’s going on?” In other words, your most important job as a leader is to "Be the Sensemaker" in the room. Rather than ignoring the situation, pointing fingers, or even assuming you can solve a problem you've never seen before, you must first make sense of it—for yourself, your team, and your organization. Further, your ability to "Be the Sensemaker" will determine all other leadership performance areas—innovation, strategic planning, cultural dynamics, market decisions, and much much more (See Sensemaking - The Hidden Advantage of Non Routine Leaders™ for more information).
For this purpose, ”Be the Sensemaker," is the first and most important principle in Non Routine Leadership, which is as much a new practice as it is a new leadership philosophy. Being a sensemaker is a commitment to understanding this new philosophy of leadership and its practical foundations. I will expound on this philosophy in the upcoming book, but the focus in this article is on the practical aspects of what it takes to “Be the Sensemaker.”
From Solver to Sensemaker
How leaders lead depends on their mindset. That is, who they think they are within their context shapes what they do and how they interpret events (Watson, 2009). “Be the Sensemaker,” therefore, is a commitment to shift your mindset from problem solver to problem sensemaker. It involves a two-part commitment that involves letting go of your initial desire to solve a challenge and, instead, taking responsibility for making sense of it. You can think of this as the act of trading in a pair of old glasses for a better prescription. Except, in this case, your new glasses will enable you to see and think better than before.
Remove your Solver Glasses: Let go of your initial desire to solve the challenge.
Put on your Sensemaking Glasses: Take responsibility for making sense of the challenge by changing how you see and think.
Remove your solver Glasses
This is the most difficult step for most people. It involves letting go of what has been your natural approach to quickly solve the problem in front of you. An inordinate amount of your training in school and in business has prepared you for a simple world that does not exist. Teachers in school or instructors at work frequently presented you with highly complex scenarios intended to develop sensemaking. However, research tells us that they probably provided a hint to “help” you solve it more quickly. This substituted the more difficult and time-consuming task of making sense of the scenario with the far easier task of solving it.
Simply stated, we prefer cognitive ease—so much so that we have trained our mind with a number of shortcuts that aim to reduce the effort of making decisions. One of the main ways we reduce the effort of addressing complex problems is by intuitively substituting the complex question with a simpler, procedural one. This is referred to as the substitution bias, which is a Pandora’s box, because the simpler questions we substitute are based on yet more biases we do not see.
For instance, when the VP of Sales is asked by her CEO how year-end sales will turn out after a merger, she will quickly replace that question with a more simply answered question using one of the common approaches we have discussed. Unfortunately, her quick thinking is riddled with many more harmful biases. Here are a just a few examples.
Intuition:
“How do I feel about sales right now?” (This substitution question is most likely using the Affect Heuristic where your current emotions influence your decision.)
“How much did we already commit to?” (This substitution question is most likely using the Commitment Bias, where your desire to remain consistent with your prior actions and beliefs is more important than their undesirable outcomes.)
Brainstorming:
“How much did the sales teams agree on?” (This substitution question is most likely using the Bandwagon Effect, when your confidence is influenced by the fact that a group of people believe in something, regardless of the underlying evidence; also known as "hopping on the bandwagon).
Experts:
“What do the experts say that sales should be during the pandemic?” (This substitution question is most likely using Confounding Variables or Illusory correlation, where you or the researcher might perceive a relationship between variables when no such relationship exists.)
Technology:
“What is the industry projecting?” (This substitution question is most likely using the AI bias, where there is an underlying reliance on data that’s used to create AI algorithms.)
In each situation above, substitutions were made in fractions of a second in order to make the challenge less difficult. The act of removing our solver glasses in these instances, will ensure we aren’t so quick to solve a question we don’t yet understand.
(Interested in other biases that could be stopping you? Download our list of the most common biases.)
Credit: Aric Nicholson
Put on your Sensemaking Glasses
Sensemaking starts with three elements – a clue, a frame of reference, and a sense that the two may be related (1995: 111). Putting on your sensemaking glasses helps you gather these frames and clues, in a more effective manner. As a leader, your ability to identify and address these clues and connections becomes your ultimate responsibility and will change the way you see and think. It is so important to your performance, that the next two principles of Non Routine Leadership—See the Clues and Think in Frames—are devoted to teaching you how to do it exceptionally well. For now, and in this article, we will provide you three simple questions to get you started on your journey to “Be the Sensemaker.”
Ask: Why & What Else?
The challenge in making sense of non routine situations, is that you have to see the most important clues, whether they are visible or invisible. A simple way to uncover these clues with your new sensemaking glasses is to ask two questions ’Why?’ and ‘What else?’ More precisely, “Why is this the most important clue?” and “What else could be a clue?”
For instance, why are you reading this right now? You may explain that a friend who referred you to the article, which refers to a clue in hindsight. However, your explanation could also reference your desire to become a better leader, which references future foresight. The question ‘Why?’ serves both purposes as well. While it is traditionally thought of as a root cause analysis or hindsight question, asking ’Why?’ can also point to the future.
Asking“Why” is a vertical thinking exercise (foresight and hindsight based on a single potential clue). ‘What else?’ is a lateral thinking exercise involving multiple potential clues. Lateral thinking encourages creativity by encouraging new ideas and a willingness to consider multiple thoughts that didn’t initially come to mind. Lateral thinking draws its uniqueness from the fact that it can lead in entirely new directions. Referring back to the question about why you are reading this article, your response to “What else?” could include prior clues like a social media post that grabbed your attention a few days ago or yesterday's conversation about leadership. ‘What else’ can help you see a bigger picture with multiple dynamic pieces of information working together.
While some criticize this exercise for leading to “analysis paralysis,” our research suggests the opposite. The problem is typically a lack of sensemaking and understanding. As stated earlier, leaders are leaning on quick intuitive solutions that are readily recalled. In these cases leaders rarely take time to ask question like why or what else because they believe their initial idea to be more important than alternative solutions which are not recalled as easily (also known as Availability Heuristic). Just a couple of quick questions like “Why?" and "What else?” will illuminate a non routine challenge.
Ask: What’s the frame?
Another question that is helpful in interpreting non routine challenges is “What’s the frame?” Although its a bit technical sounding at first, it’s more human than you might realize. Frames comprise a set of concepts (assumptions and beliefs) that structure how people think about reality. Using frames means adopting one or more structured approaches to think about a challenge. It is not asking for someone else's solution or opinion, but for how they think about challenges.
Putting on your sensemaking glasses involves improving your ability to see the frames that already exist all around you. Behind every strategy, every communication, and every decision there is a frame. Just like a physical frame, a cognitive frame simplifies the situation by generalizing large amounts of information into a handful of important features while ignoring others. Your job is to simply identify those 3-4 assumptions and beliefs that are framing the situation.
Remember our questions, “Why?” and “What else?” If you asked these questions about a recent communications strategy, you might have stumbled upon a frame, or at least 3-4 general assumptions that were responsible for guiding your decision-making process. Four general topics might include: 1. address a target need with, 2. a value proposition that is, 3. unique to your strengths, and 4. superior to the competition. If you used that frame (structured thinking) approach when you created that communication, you already understand the value of frames. If not, you now have a new tool.
The point here is that frames of all kinds already exist for you to discover once you put on your sensemaking glasses. It is far more important to be aware of the frame than the solution itself, because the frame is responsible for how you see and think. Once you become aware of the frame for a type of challenge, you begin to see more clearly the assumptions behind and, perhaps missing pieces in, the advice from an expert. You also see more clearly how your own intuition was skewed. And, you see more clearly how the technology was ‘framed’ with biases and why it missed a certain financial metric.
To be clear, not every frame will prove to be helpful, but the simple process of asking yourself “What’s the Frame?” will help you see and think through a far more clearer picture of reality. Frames are everywhere.
Summary
Aristotle might have said it differently than Marvin Gaye, but the intent is similar. His question was not so much "What's Going On," but “Why is it going on?” He suggests that, "We do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its ‘why,’ that is to say, its explanation.”
We just learned three questions that will help you get started on your journey to “Be the Sensemaker” and lead with far more effectiveness. The next time you find yourself in a non routine situation, remove your solver glasses, and put on your sensemaking glasses. For memory’s sake, think of the two lenses of the sensemaking glasses as reminders to ask the questions “Why?” and “What else?” and the frame as a reminder to ask the question “What’s the frame? (see art above)
To provide direction when facing the non routine challenges of today, leaders must become sensemakers who see the clues and frames that offer a clear picture of reality. Without these sensemaking glasses, leaders are left as solvers who blindly accept solutions from inferior sources such as our faulty intuition, brainstorming, ‘experts,’ and technology platforms. Ultimately, when leaders can’t answer the question “What’s going on?” or even “Why is it going on?”, they are not leading at all.
The Non Routine Leadership certification program equips you with far more advanced tools and trains your intuition to be more effective in the most non routine situations. For now, the point is that it has never been more important for leaders to “Be the Sensemaker” in today’s increasingly non routine world.
Special Thanks to Mike Moses for his editing contribution!
