COVID19 is not only a still rather unknown virus, it is also a threat to humankind in general. Only enormous precautions, an almost complete standstill of public and economic social life, seem to be the choice of the actual moment to contain the virus and its infections. Until so far, this virus entered the human world through a Whuan animal market – so wildlife and animals are as nature in itself not to be managed as easily as thought. A little virus, also part of nature, takes over and governs the rulers of the biggest countries. Hence, we can see the virus as a contingent rupture which might entail a new notion of our relationship with nature and earth. The virus and its effects demonstrate the frailty and fragility of humankind, which can be easily and completely disrupted. (Of course, this virus or other viral diseases are one of many disruptions, others with also large effects could be Vulcanic explosions or meteorites coming from the Universe – included in the concept of nature). It seems that the virus is telling us and teaching us that we, the human race, are not the ruler of nature. In that sense, the virus can be attributed a symbolic function. Neither our technologies, global networking and globalization, are helping us, rather the contrary. And in addition, our moral capacity is deeply questioned on different levels. I propose that we can understand the effect of this (and other)virus as an expression of the 4Thblow to human narcissism: we are not the ruler of nature.
Please find here the full paper:COVID 19 – The 4th narcissistic blow to humankind
COVID19 PRESENTS US WITH A PARADOXICAL CHALLENGE
Two possible outcomes of the pandemic are discussed in public – the negative idea of complete destruction and the developing of something new and better. The results of the pandemic seem to oscillate between the two opposing developments of either the apocalypse comes over us or a newborn and thus better phoenix comes out of the ashes. Interestingly, both images are Christian symbols once connected with the Bible, however they have left that context and entered ordinary language. They represent on one side night and destruction and on the other side sun and resurrection – the world will go under or the world will completely renew itself. We can call this a paradoxicalor a dialectical moment in time.
Before we start to look at how to deal with paradoxical problems, I would like to share my observations about the two opposing perspectives.
Please find the full paper here: COVID 19 A dialectical moment in time – Embracing paradox
Containment is key
When working in a leadership role, you have a very clear task – you give guidance, set a frame, distribute work and monitor results. You work with and for human beings, you motivate, encourage and develop them, give them respect and appreciation – in short you take care of the people you work with.
In addition, each leader carries social responsibility for the organization. For your coworkers, leaders like you represent an important human social authority. Thus – during this difficult time – entrepreneurs, CEOs and all other leaders have to make a significant contribution to social stabilization. This is crucial since pandemics on a physical level lead to pandemics on a psychosocial level.
CONTAINMENT IS KEY
First, I would like to suggest what to do and in the next step I will explain, why this is so important.
Containment is key for leaders in the actual mode of crisis. Containment provides people with the feeling of “I’m taken care of” – this is especially critical when no one knows what to do next and what the outcome of the pandemic will be. In psychology, containment refers to the interplay with another individual that helps a person to process and endure existential fears. Now, we all are exposed to these fears and have to deal with them.
Please find the full paper here: COVID 19 – Leadership and Containment
Why leader’s emotional complexity is necessary in times of strategic change
In my most recent paper on behavioural strategy* I have argued that one core competency of managers dealing with strategic decisions is to be able to consciously deal with paradoxes and ambiguities as well as the capacity to hold the tension between apparently conflicting choices. Latest research proves the need for this competency on an emotional level – emotional complexity is the key competency for leaders of strategic change in complex situations.
Rothman and Melwani (2017)** exemplify the need for emotional complexity, which means having two very different, sometimes opposing feelings at the same time or shortly one after the other.
Emotional complexity of leaders has two advantages, which are very important for strategic thinking, First it provides leaders with richer and more varied information about their environment helping them to make better and more adaptable decisions. As you can imagine, this ability is extremely important in times of a fast changing environment and disruptive innovations under high uncertainty. Second, this open and flexible attitude will empower followers to pro-actively speak up so that bottom-up change can occur. A top down a n d a bottom up process are needed for developing strategic changes – leaders with the capacity to perceive and express emotional complexity seem to be best prepared to achieve it.
One could argue that the expression of emotional complexity – experiencing and sharing contradicting demands of e.g. different stakeholders and the respective conflicting feelings associated with this – weakens the leader in the eye of the follower and might therefor be understood as rather dysfunctional. With a number of prerequisites fulfilled on both of the sides of the leader and the followers, the expression of emotional complexity will contribute positively to strategic change.
The more the leader and the follower share information and develop a shared vantage point and the more the followers know about competing tasks and organizational demands, the more the followers will cherish the sharing of emotional complexity. Consequently, they feel empowered to contribute to this difficult yet necessary change.
The leader himself might be the risk in this equation since s/he might be overwhelmed by the emotional complexity of the situation, so that s/he is not anymore capable of analysing the emotional facets of the situation. Also s/he might be too focused on reducing the feeling of tension stemming from an emotional complex situation, that he cannot benefit from a broadening perspective. Specific personality types (e.g. big five high neuroticism, low openness) would not be able to react with emotional complexity.
Yet altogether the advantages of leaders with the capacity to experience a n d express emotional complexity are greater than the disadvantages. Someone with this capacity is cognitively more flexible and emotionally better prepared to react in a mature way to complex situations with highly dilemmatic or even paradoxical choices. These choices entail the basic choice between stability and change and on more lower levels choices between profits vs purpose, exploration vs exploitation, cooperation vs competition, novelty vs usefulness, acting globally or locally.
Dealing with a paradox needs the capacities of accepting the paradox as such emotionally and cognitively, accommodating or confronting it and then differentiating and integrating the different aspects.
For all human beings – in strategy or in ordinary life – the task of life is to continuously progress through balancing, integrating, and creating new possibilities as a possible third position. The dialectical tension of the paradoxes then can lead to a creative new way of dealing with the seemingly ambivalent situation.
So it seems that emotional complexity is specifically “designed” in human beings to be able to deal with greater flexibility with complex situations that involve contraction, ambivalence, and change. So why not look for leaders with this capacity or start to develop it with them?
Literature
*Nagel, C. (2017): Behavioural Strategy and deep foundations of dynamic capabilities. Using psychodynamic concepts to better deal with uncertainty in strategic management. Global Economics and Management Review. in Press
**Rothman, N.B.; Melwani, S. (2017): Feeling mixed, ambivalent, and in flux: the social functions of emotional complexity for leaders.in Academy of Management Review, 42/2, 259-282
Source:
http://www.kierandkelly.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Emergence-002.jpg
