LEADER: STOP WORRYING ABOUT COHERENCE

We all know that leaders face conflicting challenges. They may be pressured to improve existing products while also spearheading radically new projects based on different business and management models, like those involving global networks while addressing local demands. For some executives, the solution lies in focusing on one challenge at a time; for others, it’s about finding a middle ground through negotiated priorities that work for everyone involved. What these approaches have in common is the pursuit of stable solutions to challenges — essentially, the belief that stability is what organizations need to thrive.

However, after nearly 27 years of experience, I tend to disagree with this view of leadership. These rigid models are based on a flawed representation of the real world. Therefore, the focus of this article does not involve conflicting goals that require sacrificing something. Such paradoxes, especially when “yesterday’s long-term” becomes “tomorrow’s short-term,” not only lead to losses but also lack a systemic view of the actions a leader must take in their responsibilities. What I mean to say is that focusing too much on a single focus creates demand without addressing other fronts. The leadership process is lively and organic, and scenarios change, directly impacting control and stability, often eroding built value and possibly culminating in a crisis that could lead from discrediting to drastic leadership changes — ushering in a new set of problems.

As a proposal, I aim to bring a deeper reflection on the theme “breaking organizational paradoxes through systemic leadership.” From now on, I propose expanding the vision to another way of observing such leadership issues, seeking to maintain systemic balance within the organization. The principle is to move away from focusing on coherence; instead, consider the paradoxes that arise with trust and purpose.

It might sound confusing, but it isn’t. These are different ways of viewing leadership by separating fundamental conflicting issues to open a leadership vision capable of recognizing and respecting each one of them. The proposal is to pay attention to points that are not common, those that diverge, that are different, and thus equally attribute their interdependence and draw the best results from synergy. After all, at this moment, there are a considerable number of leaders striving to avoid polarization in their companies. This polarization often arises from the simplified view of “this or that,” creating a paradoxical universe rather than a systemic one. It can typically be attributed to three fundamental points:

Leading for: “today” or “tomorrow”?

In an increasingly immediate world, deadlines are one of the most tension-generating issues within an organization. Therefore, in the majority, they forget about continuous learning and do not pay attention to their own history of actions, which hampers experimenting, taking risks, and learning from mistakes, whether launching new products, services, or even processes. Paradoxically, they also place themselves under pressure because they also need to find coherence, discipline, and constant attention to existing products, services, and processes. The paradoxes of innovation involve tensions between “today” and “tomorrow,” between what is available now and what may be in the future, alongside stability and cultural openness to change.

Leading to: stay within limits or exceed them?

One of the greatest pressures every leader faces is directly related to the limits imposed on their management. This has much to do with cultural, strategic, or even behavioral issues within the company itself. A company with teams (cells) in various geographically dispersed locations can be highly efficient, but it can also limit flexibility. Each cell has its way of looking at the business, representing a vast array of innovation potential and thus enabling diversity of ideas, but certain elements get lost along the way if a team is not gathered in one place. These globalization paradoxes reveal tensions between global connections and local needs, such as breadth versus depth, collaboration versus competition, innovation versus standardization, verticalization versus horizontalization, dependence versus independence, homogeneity versus diversity.

Leading for: internal client – shareholders and investors or for the external client – general public?

Certainly, the goal of every company is to create value and profit, but leaders may find themselves torn between maximizing profits or trying to create broader benefits for investors, employees, and consumers. This is because, with the emergence of new technologies, it has become possible to empower consumers, who have become activists through their purchasing decisions, and human capital has been recognized as the primary element capable of promoting value. These divergences prompt us to consider interdependent and yet contrasting alternatives. However, responsibilities that extend beyond the company’s walls can cause actions to plummet in the stock market, and prioritizing employees can conflict with the demands of shareholders (in the short term) and consumers. Divergent issues on what to prioritize are challenges that companies must face. Uncertainties and ambiguities are responsible for significant anxiety and resource disputes among organizational leaders.

Notice that the core idea of these three questions posed revolves around the choice between “this or that,” symbolizing a very linear and limited view that rigidifies any leadership. Today, there is no way to base decisions on right or wrong. When we transition to systemic thinking, we quickly realize that there are other possible interdependent and contrasting alternatives. For instance, innovation may conflict with operational efficiency; yet, it’s impossible to develop efficiency without being innovative at some point — and without efficiency, there won’t be much market presence. This interdependence helps leadership realize that issues should be treated as possibilities, and the approach should then remain between “this and that.”

Adopting the “this and that” strategy may seem very challenging, as we have been taught from an early age to believe that decisions should be between one or the other. We haven’t been educated to look at possibilities, and this is still clear and evident coming from a culture heavily based on the autocratic and hierarchical model of a recent (yet still very present) past. The world has changed dramatically and is in an increasingly accelerated process of transformation. If there is no reality check regarding the relationships of conflict sources, there is a tendency to freeze necessary changes according to time — actions of competition, target audience, and other external factors. Focusing on short-term performance at the expense of innovation, for example, increases the long-term risk of not investing in innovation — which can also result in missed opportunities and greater profits.

Of course, the idea of “this and that” spans from internal policies to organizational culture and must adjust based on conflicting demands from immediate profit to stakeholders, leading them to explore new possibilities in a fully interconnected world, for example, keeping up with global trends and local needs — facilitating the discussion between today and tomorrow or even how to enhance existing products versus betting on innovation. Many ideas arise when one is attentive to trends, and this can even affect leadership, forcing them to seek to create more viable new alternatives. There is no denying that micromanagement is a thing of the past and was created to remain in the obvious and the same, which is destined to fail today. There are no more truths or certainties, and the proposal of coherence has become a vice, which can be the beginning of failure.

Moreover, the various sources of conflicts that arise from adopting “this and that” tend to emerge systemically in different areas of the corporate structure — because there is an issue that governs internal cells that resist change, making decisions about these paradoxes a possible focus of enormous internal conflicts. It is normal for a larger organizational structure to encompass various cultures, each containing its particular vision, but at the same time, it reflects on the most important and corporate value, which is the diversity of identity, networks, competencies, incentives, and origins of the professionals who compose it — organizational system. Knowing how to use this knowledge value can represent a great challenge to leadership, yet it becomes possible to achieve much greater achievements. See, people in each area tend to identify with one side of “this and that,” so don’t be surprised if real conflicts arise. The inherent characteristics of systemic thinking of “this and that” make dealing with them a huge challenge. It’s not about choosing between different alternatives but recognizing that both imperatives need to be acknowledged. Moving from the “this or that” culture to “this and that” requires leaders to constantly readjust their focus from short-term attention to meeting long-term demands. Instead of alternating radically between opposing forces, this approach calls for small and timely course corrections that open doors to growth and sustainability.

“It’s wonderful that we have encountered a paradox. Finally, we have a chance to make progress.” (Niels Bohr said)

Paradoxes have played a central role in great achievements, revealing profound truths and stimulating creativity. Huge advances, such as Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, arise when scholars can understand conflicting elements. As they face increasingly unpredictable, complex, and challenging environments, companies with the greatest chances of surviving and contributing to the world will have leaders capable of embracing strategic paradoxes. Here are some ideas that can help deal with paradoxes within the systemic thinking process:

a. Paradoxical Leadership

Paradoxical leadership begins with a strategic review of what leadership represents, shifting from a linear to a systemic vision – from well-intentioned coherence to consistent inconsistency. It’s crucial here to reframe one’s own beliefs. Breaking the status quo where we categorically learn that when one idea is “right,” its opposite must be “wrong” — and if that’s not the case, we need to redefine the initial idea to eliminate the contradiction. It’s also normal for us to struggle with deciding or acting contradictorily in relation to what we accept as true or false. This belief is called “cognitive dissonance.” Present in everyone’s life, the concept of cognitive dissonance refers to the individual’s need to seek coherence between their cognitions (knowledge, opinions, or beliefs). Dissonance occurs when there is inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors believed to be correct and what is actually practiced.

The same discomfort arises when our values conflict. In summary, cognitive dissonance is a cognitive and emotional construct that results in a state of discomfort, anguish, and/or anxiety caused when there is inconsistency between cognitions. The magnitude of dissonance varies depending on the importance and discrepancy between cognitions. Once cognitive dissonance is triggered, individuals activate various psychological mechanisms to reduce or eliminate it. When two ideas appear contradictory, choosing and defending one of them can minimize cognitive dissonance. Therefore, it’s not surprising in organizations that many prefer to deal with paradox tensions by choosing one side and advocating for it. But at the top of the hierarchy, coherence is far from being a virtue — it’s rather a vice that prevents leaders from learning how to behave in the face of strategic paradoxes, which means learning to deal with varied and often conflicting truths. They need to be consistently inconsistent and develop the ability to focus on these inconsistencies.

b. From Scarcity to Abundance

Traditionally, leadership models tend to always consider resources, whether time, money, or even human assets, as limited. This is a legacy of traditional hierarchical models, where resources are often constrained by management. The idea of resource limitation is deeply ingrained in our minds. Just as executives seek to create these resource constraints regarding “market expectations” or “competitive threats.” But simply assuming that resources are limited is thinking in an equation that always ends at zero: by allocating efforts to one goal, they won’t be available for another — this fuels disputes among managers with different objectives. On the other hand, when breaking free from this rigid model, leaders can embrace the idea of breaking patterns by providing opportunities to expand their resources, viewing issues from a systemic perspective, looking at their own organization for the possibility that resources can be multiplied by sharing knowledge and transparency for projects, shifting the focus from team goals to company-wide goals.

What is meant here is that instead of trying to slice the cake into thinner slices, this abundance mindset prompts its followers to seek to increase the cake by exploring collaborations with other departments, new partners, using alternative technologies, or adopting different timelines to reallocate resources in an organizational systemic way. Over time, allocating efforts to multiple strategies can allow for greater resources for each of them. From stability, departments, and certainties to dynamism and changes. Many leaders seek to reduce the discomfort that changes can generate among their subordinates by reaffirming that they have everything under control and making decisions that minimize complicated processes and emphasize stability. This is understandable; traditional leadership models come from the military world, which values standards, hierarchies, and regularity. See, in most companies, the prevailing leadership standard where it is culturally propagated is the idea that leaders of all sectors are encouraged to build a common culture, in which all members speak the same language, share the same practices, and head towards the same destination.

But when the environment changes and challenges outside the comfort zone are presented, this approach can result in divergent, defensive, and harmful actions – in the pursuit of stability and security. The proposal here is to break this paradox so that leadership embraces the idea that comes from the word Ethos, which represents a set of attitudes that shape the character or identity of a collective providing dynamism and open to constant change, based on strategies at a broader level under the vision and knowledge of all. Leaders need to be emotionally and cognitively open to the new, developing a strategy that helps deal with ambiguities, without controlling or minimizing them. They will need to remain humble and perhaps even vulnerable, acknowledging that they may not be able to assure themselves of what awaits them in the future. This approach emphasizes the value of trial and error and fosters critical feedback that facilitates understanding of the adjustments to be made. In summary, therefore, the main idea is to generate discussion at all levels for aspects of the organization that extend to a systemic level focusing on priorities and which resources can be improved or modified as ways to integrate what already exists to what was to come. These issues help not only to improve behavior, communication, and still allows managers and subordinates to detach from permanent solutions and to concentrate on “professional certainties” that help them to go ahead and be reconsidered in the future as a commitment to employee appreciation, recognition, and belonging.

The Continuous Search for Systemic Balance

When leaders understand that truth doesn’t have just one side, that resources are not scarce but abundant, and that their role is to learn to handle change rather than fight it, they become capable of achieving systemic balance within their company. This is the core of paradoxical leadership. However, changing people’s behavior to think differently from the norm is a challenging task, especially when dealing with those who have been in the organization for a long time. Additionally, there’s the issue of positions that each person occupies, which often leads them to identify with one goal or another — resulting in conflict.

To explore the power of paradoxes, area managers need to support the development of organizational competencies in their senior teams. To achieve this, managers must separate and connect opposing forces:

• Separation: Exploring systemic potential involves recognizing that different groups not only have different objectives but also different identities. It’s necessary to be clear that everyone is directing their efforts towards meeting the company’s goals and to understand how to fit into each other’s needs so that the whole gains. One way to do this is to create uniqueness according to functions, locations, or products — each with its leader, mission, metrics, and culture. For example, a strong sales and marketing team will aim to meet the demands of their key stakeholders (customers), while a robust finance department will focus on economic efficiency and the organization’s image in the financial market. Even within a single function, there’s room for separations into subgroups: it’s common for companies to separate teams developing innovative products from those improving existing ones. Yes, you may say this is how it works, but we need to go further when there are more significant issues, and to solve them, it’s necessary to intertwine them and meet the mission of each area where each has its own metrics: “How does this decision impact our mission?” and then: “How does this decision impact our business?”, inviting their managers to consider the demands of each strategy. Ultimately, what matters is transparent and continuous communication.

• Connection: Connecting means finding links and synergies between different goals. One way to do this is to build an environment that enables comprehensive corporate identity that respectfully integrates the diversity of people in favor of a larger goal — helping employees and executives to embrace their interdependencies and opposing strategies. Senior management can create roles and processes aimed at integrating different strategic goals. A leader can appoint a manager to work as an integrator, assigning them the responsibility of linking innovation sectors to existing products. A senior manager who has taken their job may be a bridge to bring other teams closer together. Leaders can use integrated metrics and reward systems to encourage the creation of bonds. They can also provoke discussions with questions like, “How can these two goals help each other?” The focus is on the organizational system, not just the parts.

Towards Systemic Balance

The success of an organization depends as much on uniqueness as on plurality — separating and connecting. Doing only one of these can be harmful. Although separation may prevent short-term tensions by not benefiting different groups from each other in the long run, it hinders the creation of value through sharing. Connecting without separating can be as problematic as the opposite. In order to create synergy between teams, leaders can consider creating comprehensive identities, reiterating the organization’s mission, and promoting unique systems of measurement of results. But without encouraging an appreciation of the needs and values of each group involved, the result can be weak, illusory synergy, as well as conflictual. Worse: one point of view may dominate the others and abandon them in the direction of oblivion. Many companies have experienced problems of this type. Without a clear understanding of how much attention the mission really needs, short-term economic metrics, which are quantifiable and objective, tend to influence major decisions. To avoid these pitfalls, smart leaders can, for example, develop metrics and rewards — for each strategy. And, over time, complement them with other metrics and rewards according to the overall success of the organization.

These leaders create a team dynamic that promotes attention to the needs of each strategy without losing sight of the culture of respect and trust that allows work to unfold collaboratively and generates new learning. They recognize that the experience of their collaborators also weighs on the team and play different roles by advocating their own needs without losing sight of the global needs of the company. And, above all, they demonstrate the trust necessary to embrace paradoxes and the humility to know that, in doing so, they will have a challenge ahead of them, one that can be overcome since the vision of each collaborator is no longer linear and passes and sees how systemic to where in fact, and in summary, everything points to the whole — organization, and not to the parts in particular.

Did you like this article?

THANK YOU FOR READING AND SEEING MARCELLO DE SOUZA IN ANOTHER EXCLUSIVE PUBLICATION ABOUT HUMAN BEHAVIOR

Hello, I’m Marcello de Souza! I started my career in 1997 as a leader and manager in a large company in the IT and Telecommunications market. Since then, I have participated in important projects of structuring, implementation, and optimization of telecommunications networks in Brazil. Restless and passionate about behavioral and social psychology. In 2008, I decided to delve into the universe of the human mind.

Since then, I have become a professional passionate about deciphering the secrets of human behavior and catalyzing positive changes in individuals and organizations. Doctor in Social Psychology, with over 25 years of experience in Cognitive Behavioral and Human Organizational Development. With a wide-ranging career, I highlight my role as:

– Master Senior Coach and Trainer: Guiding my clients in the pursuit of goals and personal and professional development, achieving extraordinary results.

– Chief Happiness Officer (CHO): Fostering an organizational culture of happiness and well-being, boosting productivity and employee engagement.

– Expert in Language and Behavioral Development: Enhancing communication and self-awareness skills, empowering individuals to face challenges with resilience.

– Cognitive Behavioral Therapist: Using cutting-edge cognitive-behavioral therapy to help overcome obstacles and achieve a balanced mind.

– Speaker, Professor, Writer, and Researcher: Sharing valuable knowledge and ideas in events, training, and publications to inspire positive changes.

– Consultant and Mentor: Leveraging my experience in leadership and project management to identify growth opportunities and propose personalized strategies.

My solid academic background includes four postgraduates and a doctorate in Social Psychology, along with international certifications in Management, Leadership, and Cognitive Behavioral Development. My contributions in the field are widely recognized in hundreds of classes, training sessions, conferences, and published articles.

Co-author of the book “The Secret of Coaching” and author of “The Map Is Not the Territory, the Territory Is You” and “The Diet Society” (the first of a trilogy on human behavior in contemporaneity – 05/2024).

Allow me to be your companion on this journey of self-discovery and success. Together, we will unravel a universe of behavioral possibilities and achieve extraordinary results.

By the way, I invite you to join my network. As a lover of behavioral psychology, social psychology, and neuroscience, I have created my YouTube channel to share my passion for cognitive behavioral development with more people.

Please note that all data and content in this article or video are exclusive, written, and reviewed by Marcello de Souza based on proven philosophical concepts and scientific studies to ensure that the best possible content reaches you.

Don’t forget to follow Marcello de Souza on other social media platforms and join the VIP list to receive exclusive articles weekly by email.

✍️ Leave your comment

📢 Share with friends

🧠 The official channel Marcello de Souza_ was created to simplify the understanding of human behavior and complement the information on the blog: www.marcellodesouza.com.br

🧠 Subscribe to the channel: www.youtube.com/@marcellodesouza_oficial

🧠 Marcello de Souza’s latest book: /www.marcellodesouza.com.br/o-mapa-nao-e-o-territorio-o-territorio-e-voce/

🧠 Commercial Contact: comercial@coachingevoce.com.br

🧠 Write to Marcello de Souza: R. Antônio Lapa, 280 – Sexto Andar – Cambuí, Campinas – SP, 13025-240

Social Media

🧠 Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/company/marcellodesouzaoficial

🧠 Instagram: @marcellodesouza_oficial

🧠 Instagram: @coachingevoce

🧠 Facebook: www.facebook.com/encontraroseumelhor/

🧠 Facebook: /www.facebook.com/coachingevoce.com.br/

🧠 Official website: www.coachingevoce.com.br/ www.marcellodesouza.com

🧠 VIP list to receive exclusive articles weekly of my own authorship: contato@marcellodesouza.com.br

🧠 Portfolio: https://linktr.ee/marcellodesouza

🧠 Presentation and adaptation: Marcello de Souza

#emotions #selfcontrol #selfawareness #emotionalrelationship #selfhelp #motivation #overcoming #personaldevelopment #selfdevelopment #mindset #positivethinking #positiveattitude #success #positivity #leadership #coachingleader #executivecoaching #teammanagement #consciousleadership #resilience #mentalstrength #resilient #overcomingobstacles #winningmentality #balance #professional life #personal life #careercoaching #qualityoflife #PersonalDevelopment #Selfknowledge #EmotionalIntelligence #PersonalGrowth #Mindfulness #WellBeing #BalancedLife #PositivePsychology #Resilience #HumanBehavior #Motivation #SelfEsteem #SocialSkills #Empathy #MentalBalance #MentalHealth #PersonalTransformation #HealthyHabits #SelfImprovement #InnerHappiness