Roger: So, let's jump right in. Patricia, you ever get that feeling like the world's just spinning way too fast? You know, plans go sideways, solutions just blow up in your face, and "business as usual" is about as reliable as predicting next week's weather? Patricia: <Scoffs> Roger, are you describing my daily existence? If you mean my calendar's a complete disaster and emails reproduce like rabbits, then yeah, that's pretty much every day. Isn't that just… life now? What's the big revelation here? Roger: Well, the "revelation," I guess, is that leaders can't just keep dusting off the same old playbook. We're all leading in what's called a VUCA world - Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous. And that's exactly what we're tackling today. We're diving into this book, Simple Habits for Complex Times by Jennifer Garvey Berger and Keith Johnston. It’s about leadership, sure, but not the fluffy, "hang-in-there-kitty" poster kind. It's actually practical, really grounded, and meant for the messiness of real-world situations. Patricia: Oh, so finally, a book that doesn't promise I'll become a superhero if I just follow five easy steps? About time. Roger: Exactly! Berger and Johnston “really” zoom in on how leaders can adapt, think differently, and experiment to actually navigate tricky stuff. They use frameworks like the Cynefin model, and then they throw in these “really” gritty case studies that show why messing up can actually be a good thing – a “real” tool for growth. Patricia: Okay, I'm intrigued. What's our game plan today? Lay it out for me. Roger: Right, so we're going to break it down into three parts. First, we're going to talk about how leadership needs a facelift when you're dealing with complexity. Think less about bossing and more about being curious. Then, we'll get into the skills that leaders need to “really” experiment and learn. Forget the to-do list, grab a lab coat. And finally, we'll dig into what it takes to bring teams together around a shared goal, even when everything's chaotic. Patricia: A compass, a toolkit, and a map, huh? Sounds like we're prepping for a serious expedition. Roger: Precisely! Because leading in a VUCA world, it's like charting completely unknown territory. So, let's get to it and unpack the tools you need to not just survive, but actually thrive in all that uncertainty.

Roger: Okay, so picking up where we left off, let's dive deeper into redefining leadership for our complex world. Specifically, thinking about adaptive leadership. It’s about fundamentally rethinking how leaders approach uncertainty – not by trying to control everything, but by embracing exploration and adaptation. Patricia: Right, I’m still mulling this over. We’ve talked about VUCA, but how does this "adaptive leadership" actually work? Are we just throwing out structure altogether and hoping for the best? Because that sounds like a recipe for chaos, not adaptation, right? Roger: I know, it can sound a bit… loose at first. But no, it's not about chaos. It's about really understanding the type of challenge you’re facing so you can respond effectively. That's where the Cynefin framework comes in. It basically categorizes problems into five domains, which helps leaders match their strategies to the nature of the problem. Patricia: Five domains, huh? Interesting. Lay them out for me, Roger. Roger: Sure. First, you have the obvious domain. Things are clear-cut, like following a recipe. You know what works, best practices are well-established. Then there's the complicated domain, where you need expertise. Think of fixing a car: you analyze the problem, maybe consult a mechanic, and then take action. Patricia: Hmm. Sounds like business as usual so far. Not exactly revolutionary. Roger: Well, the real challenge starts with the complex domain. Here, you can't rely on past experience because outcomes are unpredictable. Raising a child is a good example—what worked yesterday might completely backfire today. You need to experiment and adjust constantly to make headway. Patricia: Okay, I get the unpredictability. But what about truly chaotic situations? Roger: Chaotic… that's crisis mode. You need to act immediately just to establish some stability before you can even begin to analyze things. Picture a firefighter rushing into a burning building; they don't have time to strategize. Action first, reflection later. And finally, there's aporia. That’s when you’re totally disoriented; you don't even know where to begin. It's pure confusion, and you need to step back and figure out what kind of problem you're even dealing with. Patricia: Okay, I see how this framework could be helpful for classifying problems. But how does all this go beyond just theory? Do people really sit around in meetings, labeling situations as "chaotic" or "complex"? Roger: It's a fair point. Well, the book gives a great example: Yolanda Murphy, a director at Family and Children's Services. Her agency was facing a child protection crisis – systemic failures, a spike in abuse cases… public outrage. It was a perfect storm of complexity. Patricia: Yikes. Sounds like definitely not a "follow the recipe" situation. Roger: Exactly. Initially, Yolanda tried solving the problems with traditional top-down methods – policies, expert opinions, linear plans. But they just weren't working. The challenges weren’t in the complicated domain; they were complex. So, she had to shift her approach. She embraced the lack of a clear solution, encouraged experimentation, and brought her team into the process of figuring things out. Patricia: Wait a second. What kind of "experiments" are we talking about? When children's lives are at stake, “trial and error” doesn’t sound particularly reassuring, does it? Roger: No, I hear you. But these weren’t reckless experiments. In adaptive leadership, experiments are designed to be "safe-to-fail." Yolanda actively created a culture where small-scale testing was seen as a way to explore potential solutions without risking a full-blown catastrophe. For example, instead of implementing sweeping reforms across the entire agency, they piloted changes in specific departments or communities. This allowed them to test ideas, measure the impact, and refine their approach before scaling up. Patricia: So, it's like beta testing, right? Low-risk, but you still get valuable feedback. Roger: Yes, exactly! It’s about iterative learning – testing, adapting, and evolving instead of trying to get it perfect the first time. Patricia: Okay, in theory, experimentation makes sense. But playing devil’s advocate here: doesn’t all that trial-and-error waste time that could be spent, you know, actually fixing things? Roger: I know the feeling. The book addresses that mindset head-on, and points out something called "retrospective coherence." That’s when leaders assume that past successes will naturally lead to future solutions, even when the whole situation has changed. Yolanda’s team initially fell into this trap – reacting to new crises with outdated strategies. But instead of doubling down on what wasn’t working, she intentionally reframed failure as a learning opportunity. Patricia: So, you're saying she was… intentionally pursuing opportunities to fail? Roger: Yes. Failure as a feedback mechanism. Yolanda encouraged her team to re-evaluate their past approaches, ask really tough questions, and see their own stories in a new light. It shifted the agency from a feeling of being stuck in a rut to seeing glimmers of possibilities for reform. Patricia: Re-telling your stories… sounds a bit touchy-feely for a public agency dealing with very serious child protection cases. How does that actually translate into practical improvements? Roger: It’s not just about feel-good storytelling. Re-examining failures and successes in a new light helps organizations reframe problems, break out of rigid mindsets, and see the bigger picture. It's not about creating a nicer narrative; it's about cultivating a culture where learning takes precedence over defensiveness. Patricia: Alright, I’ll admit, that’s… intriguing. But I’m guessing adaptive leadership isn’t just about internal reflection. What about dealing with external pressures, like stakeholders and critics? Because community trust in Yolanda’s agency must have been at an all-time low. Roger: Absolutely. External collaboration was crucial. One moment that really stood out to me was how Yolanda engaged with Reverend Welcher – a very vocal community critic who had every reason to distrust her agency. Instead of ignoring him or getting into a conflict, she invited him to the table. She validated his concerns and turned an adversarial relationship into more of a partnership. Patricia: And he just decided to trust her? Seems a little… optimistic. Roger: Not immediately. But the invitation itself symbolized something important – it showed that Yolanda’s leadership wasn’t afraid of criticism. By opening up a dialogue, she fostered trust and brought a wider range of perspectives to the table. Reverend Welcher eventually became an ally, helping FACS build bridges with the community. Patricia: So, emotional intelligence saved the day, is that what you're saying? Roger: Emotional intelligence, absolutely, but also more than that. It’s also about strategic thinking—understanding that real change isn’t about one person or one brilliant idea. It’s something that's collective, iterative, and deeply human. Patricia: Alright, Roger, I’ll grudgingly admit this adaptive leadership approach has merit. Leaders like Yolanda demonstrate that when you shift away from control and move towards collaboration, when you give up on fixed answers and embrace experimentation, you can actually manage even chaotic situations. Roger: Exactly, Patricia! And that's really the essence of adaptive leadership. It’s not always easy or perfect, but it’s essential for navigating the complex, VUCA world we live in.

Roger: So, understanding adaptive leadership naturally leads to exploring how leaders can actually develop the capabilities they need to thrive, right? Today, we’re going to dive into the specific tools and practices leaders need to sharpen if they “really” want to excel in these complex, fast-changing environments. Basically, building on the foundation of adaptive leadership with actionable strategies. Patricia: Alright, so we're moving from theory to practice, huh? I'm ready, what's the first “capacity” we're tackling here? Roger: The first and perhaps most crucial is learning to actually engage with complexity without oversimplifying things. You know that instinct we all have to break a big problem down into bite-sized, manageable chunks? While that works for some things, with “real” complexity, it often backfires. Patricia: Let me guess, this is where that Cynefin framework we talked about earlier comes back into play? Roger: Exactly. Leaders need to develop an instinct for actually recognizing complexity, and, really, resist the urge to just slap linear solutions onto problems that don’t have a clear cause and effect. Take Yolanda Murphy, who we've touched on briefly. Her work as a director of Family and Children’s Services was textbook complexity: child welfare, systemic bureaucracy, public backlash, all intertwined, just a mess, right? Patricia: I mean, just the phrase "child welfare bureaucracy" gives me a headache. That sounds like a nightmare to lead. Roger: It was! Yolanda initially leaned on the usual tools, right? Policy adjustments, expert committees, strict implementation plans. But traditional methods couldn’t account for the emotional, unpredictable human stakes at play. So, she shifted her approach. She didn't try to "control" the system, she started experimenting. Patricia: Right, you mentioned those "safe-to-fail" experiments. So, instead of launching some grand rescue plan, she tried small changes first? Roger: Exactly. One specific initiative focused on giving frontline workers more decision-making power—decentralizing control so they could “really” respond more organically to the needs of their cases. Yolanda's team also began tracking what they called "weak signals" in reports, those subtle, early warning signs that hinted at deeper problems before they escalated into major crises. Patricia: That's interesting, so instead of drowning in complexity, they started to map it, right? It's like spotting cracks that could lead to an avalanche and acting before the whole mountain crumbles. Roger: That’s a perfect metaphor! But the key takeaway is this: Yolanda didn't simplify the challenges into some neat checklist. She actively recognized the complexity and embraced it, and that gave her team the flexibility to face uncertainty without just needing immediate answers for everything. Patricia: Okay, but let me ask: Does this willingness to "experiment" work across industries? “Safe-to-fail” sounds fine in a social services context, where lives literally depend on thoughtful action. But, honestly, how transferable is this to, say, tech or finance? Roger: Totally transferable. And that brings us to another example from the book: the story of Actualeyes, a software company which transitioned into more human-centered services. They embraced a culture of experimentation precisely to navigate the uncertainty of their market shift. Patricia: Let me guess, can't find "safe-to-fail" footwear there? Roger: Pretty close. They developed an "innovation lab" where employees tested small prototype ideas in a low-stakes environment. For instance, one experiment involved creating personalized consultations for clients, aiming to understand customer needs better. Patricia: Got it. But what’s the actual payoff? I mean, at some point, you have to stop experimenting and, you know, actually deliver something concrete, right? Roger: Of course. But here’s the beauty of their story: the experiments revealed unexpected insights. For example, they realized clients didn't just want intuitive software, they “really” needed help integrating it into their existing systems. And that discovery shifted their entire business model, adding strategic consulting services to their offerings. Patricia: So, the leaders at Actualeyes weren’t just dabbling for kicks—they were mining experiments for gold, right? And when they struck it, they scaled up? Roger: Exactly. It’s all about fostering that growth mindset, one where failure isn’t the finish line, but rather just part of the process. Patricia: I definitely see the value, but here’s my issue: experimentation’s great when the stakes are “really” manageable. What happens when leaders' instincts are clouded by their own biases? Because, I’ve seen enough CEOs double down on, frankly, bad ideas simply because they couldn't admit they were wrong. Roger: And this is exactly why recognizing and overcoming biases is another critical capacity for leaders. Bias shapes how we see the world, often misleading us. And yes, leaders are just as prone to it as anyone else. One of the biases they mention in the book is what they call "too busy to notice.” Patricia: <Laughs> Oh, I feel attacked already. Roger: Think about it. Leaders are juggling so much that they often miss the subtle signs screaming for attention. Yolanda faced this, too, when she almost overlooked community distrust simmering beneath the surface during her agency reforms. But she course-corrected by creating reflection sessions with her team to actually pause and take stock of those weak signals. Patricia: And then there’s the classic confirmation bias, where leaders only see data that agrees with their existing assumptions. Roger: Yup. Which is why Yolanda's team anonymized performance data to counteract this kind of bias. By removing preconceived notions about who was succeeding or failing, they were able to evaluate more objectively and identify “real” patterns. Patricia: Did the book offer any practical hacks for fixing biases? Roger: Several. Anonymous evaluations, structured dissent in team meetings, and making space for outlier opinions. Basically, it’s about designing processes that actively challenge our autopilot thinking. Patricia: Makes sense. Because if leadership is an adaptive process, cutting through your own mental fog is probably step one, wouldn't you say? Roger: Absolutely. And it ties into the final capacity I wanted to touch on, how leaders communicate. When navigating complexity, leaders need regular, robust feedback loops. I mean, it can't just be a top-down hierarchy, but collaborative conversations too. Patricia: Like, actual back-and-forth? Not just like, "How's it going?" followed by a polite thumbs-up? Roger: Exactly. The book highlights a case where leaders at Actualeyes radically overhauled how they gave feedback. Instead of generic critiques, they leaned into exploratory dialogues. For example, asking employees, "What did you notice about this approach?" rather than just fixing the mistake for them. Patricia: Okay, I get it, a leader as a coach, not just a micromanager. Roger: And the results were remarkable. Teams grew more engaged, feedback uncovered blind spots, and the organization as a whole started evolving in “real” time. Patricia: So, in summary: If leaders want to thrive in this VUCA world, they've got to shake off old habits, embrace complexity, test small, overcome their blind spots, and actually talk to people. Simple, right? Roger: Simple to say, a lifetime to master, right? But the tools are there, and that’s the exciting part. Everyone can build these capacities with time and, of course, effort.

Roger: So, with these leadership skills in place, it's all about how leaders can create and share a vision that really brings teams together, especially when things are uncertain. We’re moving from individual leadership skills to how they affect the whole organization, showing how leadership turns into real cultural and systematic change. We’re getting to the core of what leaders need to do when things are complicated: make a vision that inspires but stays adaptable. Patricia: Okay, "crafting vision," sounds a bit… abstract, doesn't it? Roger, let's be honest, "vision" can feel like just another corporate buzzword. What makes this kind of vision different from those generic mission statements you see everywhere? Roger: That’s a great point! This vision isn’t about being rigidly certain. It’s about making shared meaning while still leaving room to adapt. Think of it as a framework that's both compelling and flexible—not something set in stone. Leaders in complex situations need to balance confidence with openness. They give direction, but they also know there are no guarantees. Patricia: So, it's less "We have all the answers" and more "We're committed to finding them together." Got it. But how does that actually work? People look to leaders for clarity, right? Isn't saying "I don't know" a bit… risky? Roger: It can feel that way. But being honest often builds more trust than pretending you know everything. Look at Yolanda Murphy, director of Family and Children’s Services. She took over a department that was under huge public pressure. Child protection is emotionally charged and high stakes. Instead of pretending she had all the answers, she was clear from the start: things were complicated, and there would be no quick fixes. Her vision wasn’t about perfection. It was about staying committed to making safer environments for kids, even when things were difficult. Patricia: I bet some people saw that as weakness. I can hear them now: "How can we trust a leader who admits they don't know everything?" Roger: And that skepticism is natural at first. But Yolanda didn’t just admit uncertainty. She built trust by taking actions that matched her vision. For example, she brought in community leaders, including critics like Reverend Welcher. He had publicly criticized the system, but instead of avoiding him, she invited him to talk. She said, "We both want the same thing—a better system for these children," and created a shared goal. Patricia: I’ll give her props for boldness. Opening that door could have easily backfired. Roger: True, but by focusing on working together instead of fighting, she turned Welcher from a critic to a partner. It shows that crafting a vision isn’t just about what you say—it’s about what you do to bring people together, even those who disagree at first. Patricia: Okay, you've convinced me about collaboration. But big systems like child welfare or even corporations aren't exactly easy to steer. How do you get everyone to actually get behind a vision without constant resistance? Roger: That’s where boundaries and attractors come in. Leaders can set clear boundaries to give structure while also creating "attractors" that motivate people to align their efforts. Think of boundaries as supports—they shape the organization’s work while letting people experiment. And attractors? Those are the values or goals everyone can focus on. Patricia: Interesting. Got an example? Roger: Actualeyes, the software company we’ve mentioned, is a good example. When they decided to move from just software to services, the leaders had to manage competing priorities. They didn’t want their new service projects to hurt their focus on technical excellence, so they set tight boundaries. For instance, they only put limited resources into experimental projects to make sure their main business didn’t suffer. Meanwhile, their attractor was clear: using software and services to improve human connections. Patricia: So, they set limits but also gave people enough of a reason to stay motivated. What’s the secret to balancing those boundaries with the freedom that the team need,without causing frustration for the team? Roger: Communication. At Actualeyes, leaders said that boundaries weren't restrictions but things that enabled creativity—guidelines to help their team feel safe experimenting without fear of failing. For instance, their pilot projects weren’t just about success or failure. Instead, they were chances to learn and adapt along the way. It actually sparked innovation, not frustration. Patricia: You know, this boundary-plus-attractor idea sounds like a seesaw: shaky at first but balanced in the end. But that leads to another question: how do you deal with organizations where the main "attractor"—like growth or profit—creates tension? Like innovation versus stability. Change versus keep up the status quo. Roger: That's a perfect segue into managing polarities, which is one of the biggest challenges in crafting a vision. Leaders often face these tensions. Think about Actualeyes, they had to balance their focus on software with the push for new services. Instead of seeing it as either/or, they changed the perspective. Squint and Hannah, the co-founders, worked with their team to see how innovation and stability could help each other. Patricia: Call me a skeptic, but this sounds like endless discussions. Isn't there a risk of decision paralysis? Roger: Yes, if the leader isn’t intentional. But in cases like Actualeyes, they didn’t just talk about trade-offs; they actively mapped them out. For instance, they created joint projects where any service had to work with and improve their software. It wasn’t about pleasing everyone all the time—it was about showing how competing priorities could coexist with minimal friction. Patricia: So the idea is to use these tensions in a productive way, rather than trying to get rid of them completely. Interesting. But we’ve only talked about the internal stuff—what about working with people outside the organization? How do leaders create a vision when they need buy-in from entire communities, not just their staff? Roger: That’s where Yolanda really shines again. Besides her internal work at Family and Children’s Services, she made community engagement a priority. One thing she did was connect at-risk youth with older mentors in the community—a program that came from team brainstorming but was shaped through public input. It was experimental, but it worked. The connections between youth and older participants strengthened community ties. Patricia: That’s clever—turning individuals into collective problem-solvers. But I bet skeptics didn’t just disappear overnight. Roger: Change takes time. But Yolanda's openness—she listened, adjusted, and communicated—earned her community trust over time. That trust empowered initiatives that were both creative and impactful. Patricia: Alright, Roger, this all comes down to something I didn’t expect: crafting vision isn’t about telling people what to do or fixing problems quickly. It’s a process—a constant push and pull between clarity and flexibility, boundaries and collaboration, a healthy dose of debate and small experiments. Roger: Exactly. Leaders in complicated situations can’t know everything, but by bringing people together, fostering trust, and embracing the unknown, they can shape environments where new ideas flourish.

Roger: Okay, Patricia, so if we had to boil it all down, leading in today's complex, unpredictable world means we've got to ditch the old rules of the game, right? We need to realize that not every problem can be solved just by throwing experience or expertise at it. Adaptability, experimentation, and true collaboration, those need to be our north stars. Frameworks like Cynefin help us make sense of the problem, and practices like running safe-to-fail experiments, and really questioning our assumptions, that’s what keeps an organization learning and evolving. Patricia: Right, and let’s not forget the human element here, Roger. It’s about creating a vision that’s both compelling and flexible. Whether it’s Yolanda turning around a struggling child welfare system, or Actualeyes completely reinventing their business, the key takeaway is that leading in complex situations isn't about having all the answers. It's about fostering an environment where the solutions can actually emerge organically. Roger: Exactly! And if our listeners take away just one thing, let it be this: as a leader, you don't have to control everything. Instead, focus on nurturing your own curiosity, really listening to your people, and guiding your team through uncertainty. Complexity isn't a problem to be solved—it's “a chance” to learn, to innovate, and to grow together. Patricia: Nicely put, Roger. So, here’s a question for our listeners: What’s one small thing, one new approach, you can try today to better navigate complexity? Because let’s be honest, this VUCA world isn’t going anywhere. How we choose to lead within it, well, that’s what will shape our future.