Beauty in Chaos
All of my personality tests reveal a strong need for novelty, suggesting that routine and structure could gradually drain my motivation. Yet, paradoxically, I find immense freedom in systems and processes. I believe that having a framework for my most important actions actually creates space for freedom. For example, my wife and I have a morning routine that seldom changes: we wake up, enjoy a cup of coffee together while chatting, go for a walk, have a second coffee, read our devotional, and then get ready for work. Although I prefer working in a dynamic, high-pressure environment filled with variety, the consistent structure around my key activities yields beautiful outcomes.
Stewart Friedman’s Total Leadership introduces a self-diagnostic process aimed at fostering growth across what he identifies as the four domains of leadership: Home, Work, Community, and Self. My biggest takeaway from Friedman is that small, systematic, and incremental changes can lead to significant results. I've been refining a system similar to Friedman’s to develop both spiritual maturity and leadership competencies. His writing has sparked my interest in applying a systematic approach to problem-solving, as I believe it offers tremendous potential to improve outcomes and enhance collaboration.
In Cracked It, former McKinsey consultants Bernard Garrette, Corey Phelps, and Oliver Sibony teach a brilliant systematic approach to solving complex problems, which they call 4S. They emphasize that after clearly defining the problem, three primary paths can follow. If leaders think they have a solution, hypothesis testing can help verify what conditions must be met for that solution to hold. If the problem is more ambiguous, constructing an issue tree can help identify its root cause. Alternatively, if the problem involves an unmet or emerging opportunity, design thinking can guide leaders to create innovative products or services to fill that gap.
It looks complex, yet a beautiful simplicity emerges with practice.
Consider these scenarios:
"Should we purchase this business or expand our existing facility?" (Hypothesis Testing)
"Why is our X Division losing money each quarter?" (Issue Tree)
"There’s an untapped need in our market—can we step in?" (Design Thinking)
Their work is utterly fascinating. The framework they propose fosters a common language, enabling teams to leverage diverse talents and skills to produce the best possible results. I'm learning that systems and processes don't restrict us—they offer the liberty to engage fully and think creatively about what truly matters.
As I reflect on this, I find myself pondering the balance between the excitement of variety and the peace of predictable consistency. Where is the sweet spot for me?
Leaders, where do you implement systems and procedures, and when do you rely on your instincts?