Jeff and I are big fans of simplicity. Simplicity is a critical component of the model for strategic capacity that we are working on right now (and Jeff had an article on the topic in Associations Now this year).
We agree with Oliver Wendell Holmes’ notion of “simplicity on the other side of complexity.” On “this side” of complexity (before really exploring the complexity of a subject), you have the overly simple. Oversimplified doesn’t help us. It distracts and misleads us. On the “other side” of complexity you have the elegantly simple. Distilled. Clear. Powerful.
We need to be able to tell the difference between the overly simple and the elegantly simple and have the discipline to see our thinking all the way through to the elegant side.
In that context, there is an article in MIT’s Sloan Management Review by Lawrence Stybel and Maryanne Peabody that talks about “stealth mandates” in organizations. The main point of their article is that you’re doomed if the leader is delivering one message about direction but the organization is beneath the surface operating under a different set of assumptions and directions. Hard to argue with that, actually.
But at the beginning of the article, the authors make this point:
Generally speaking, leadership mandates fall into one of three major categories; continuity, good to great, and turnaround. Continuity means business as usual: carrying on policies, procedures and strategies. A typical example is the interim CEO, selected to maintain the status quo until a permanent CEO is found. Good to great refers to Jim Collins’ bestselling book of the same name. A good-to-great mandate is essentially this: We’ve been doing fine, but we can—and need to—do even better. Turnaround means dramatic changes are necessary: no business process, job or strategy is sacred.
So is this the elegantly simple? Does this really capture (at a high level) the basic strategic options? And Jeff, I’m particularly curious about your reaction: should “continuity” really be on the list?
Comments