Dealing with ambiguity

Looking at the role of leadership in managing and, in some cases, removing one of the hallmarks of modern business

I love a good framework. Anyone who has worked with me knows this as I don’t try to hide the fact. I find frameworks really useful when it comes to dealing with complex or abstract topics. They help provide some rules, principles and processes that can help take those first few steps towards greater clarity and understanding.

And the really good ones (and sometimes even the not-so-good ones) can encourage original thinking of your own by prompting reflection on terminology and definitions. Which is how I landed on my thoughts about the different types of ambiguity and the role of leadership - thoughts I am happy to share with the hope that they are of help to others.

A framework that frames work

Photo by Paul Becker on Unsplash

Years ago, I was introduced to a framework for professional competency mapping and development. I knew it as the Lominger Competencies, but nowadays it is owned by a company called Korn Ferry, so you might have heard it referred to under different names. It was based on research and empirical data by Michael Lombardo, Robert Eichinger, David Ulrich and others about the kinds of capabilities people and leaders exhibit and develop as part of modern work.

The framework outlined, among other things, 67 competencies - yes, 67! - covering a wide range of skills and attributes that their research showed were important for personal and professional success.

I didn’t really appreciate the framework at the time, to be honest, and pretty much saw it as ‘one more thing’ I had to do as a leader: get my teams to fill out the assessments, and then populate their development plan, and then start the actual work of helping them progress those plans.

But over the years, I have found myself returning to Lominger time and time again. Particularly because, for each competency, the framework not only had a good definition and explanation for what ‘skilled’ and ‘unskilled’ (and ‘overuse’, interestingly) looks like, but also provided an accompanying guide of ‘remedies’ that could be deployed by someone looking to grow in a particular competency. This made conversations about professional development far more targeted and practical, and therefore useful.

Anyway, this is not a sales pitch for Lominger. I just wanted to use it to zero in on one competency in particular - one which is often called out as being critical to modern work, and yet has also been used as an excuse for lazy leadership.

Is that a spicy enough teaser?

Let’s talk about dealing with ambiguity.

Ambiguity vs. Ambiguity

Lominger takes this one seriously. It is part of their “Big 8”, which are “the eight competencies significantly correlated with performance and promotion potential across organizational levels and with generally rated low skill levels. The evidence came from Lominger’s research and others’ research, particularly leadership studies conducted at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL).”¹

The summary of being skilled in “Dealing with Ambiguity” according to the Lominger framework is someone who:

can effectively cope with change; can shift gears comfortably; can decide and act without having the total picture; isn’t upset when things are up in the air; doesn’t have to finish things before moving on; can comfortably handle risk and uncertainty

In nearly every conversation about senior leadership talent development I can recall, particularly those that were part of talent mapping exercises, I have heard a variation of this definition being used as an example of what someone was either role modelling or needing to role model in order to move to the next level. Which is not that surprising, really, given how important this skill is to businesses that are having to adapt and change and make decisions with incomplete data all the time.

But since I first heard about the competency framed that way, I have formed the view that there are really two different classes of ambiguity. The first is what I call unavoidable ambiguity (or ‘authentic ambiguity’). This is the type that I think we all recognise in the somewhat futile struggle to find all the information we need (or just really want) for our work.

You can’t possibly know everything your competitors are going to do, for example, or be able to predict with pinpoint accuracy what the market is going to ask or expect of your company. You don’t know which of your upfront plans are truly going to succeed and which are going to need to be adapted and changed. You won’t know what systems are going to fail at which time, nor precisely when a leadership change is going to fundamentally adjust the course or culture of the organisation.

Sure, you can have educated guesses on many of these points, factoring in the data you have to hand and your own good judgement. But much of what you actually have to do in this type of ambiguous environment is deal with, or accept, that the ambiguity is still going to be there. Resting on your ability to dispel that ambiguity before making decisions to lead your team forward is a mistake - something I have learned through my own failings in this area. Instead, there is plenty of guidance out there about how to re-anchor and re-orient yourself, how to pause and regain your balance, how to be mindful and present, and how to connect and work with others to forge a path forward - even in the face of uncertainty and unavoidable ambiguity.

What is it we do here?

However, there is a second class of ambiguity, in my experience, and it is unfortunately one that is also too easily exhibited in many businesses today. I call this unnecessary ambiguity (or, if you prefer, ‘artificial ambiguity’).

This is the ambiguity that comes from a lack of clearly articulated strategy, or vision. Or through not having an organisational purpose that resonates with everyone, or not having explicit goals and OKRs. Where roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined, and key processes are opaque to anyone who enquires about them. These and other similar examples are the things that a ‘reasonable person’ would expect any business to have defined and available for others to comprehend. And while that is not always an easy ask, it is still a fair one, and one that requires a response.

Because the key difference between the two types is that while unavoidable ambiguity should be managed, unnecessary ambiguity should be removed. Deal with the first type, deal to the second type. Unnecessary ambiguity only exists because the (often hard) work of defining some of those critical business concepts and tenets hasn’t been done, or hasn’t been communicated clearly, or isn’t readily available.

No amount of breathing and mindfulness exercises is going to help if you don’t know what your strategy is or what you’re trying to achieve.

Much of the responsibility for dealing to this ambiguity rightly rests with those of us in leadership positions. We might not have all the answers, but it should be with us to work with others to develop the necessary clarity and make it accessible to others.

I think that excuses like “that’s wordsmithing” or “that’s too much detail” aren’t very productive in these situations, but they can be a natural first reaction when busy people are asked to redirect effort towards solving this problem. As can saying something like “well, we/they just need to be comfortable dealing with ambiguity.”

So, I put this out there as a general call: when you find yourself gravitating towards using a version of that phrase - “dealing with ambiguity” - may I suggest pausing and just checking whether the ambiguity you’re talking about really is unavoidable. If it is, can you help those around you get comfortable with that ambiguity and then lead them forward regardless of it?

However, if it just unnecessary ambiguity, can you be the one to start to remove it?

1. Lominger Product Research Backgrounds final (kornferry.com)