The traditional approach assumes stability.

Traditional execution models assume stability. They rely on linear processes, predictable cause-and-effect relationships, and the assumption that organisations can control their external environment.

This may have worked at some point, but with increasing uncertainty and unpredictability, traditional approaches to execution don't just fail; they actively increase fragility.

Every year, organisations gather for the ritual of crafting "strategies" and refining "cultures."

But beneath the glossy presentations and corporate slogans lies a harsh reality: these terms are often placeholders for vague aspirations rather than actionable or systemic concepts. "Strategy" has become shorthand for lists of initiatives far from strategic, while "culture" is reduced to inspirational posters and HR buzzwords to embolden the status quo.

As we close the chapter on 2024, it's essential to acknowledge the turbulence and volatility that defined this year. The relentless pace of change and the unpredictability of events have exposed the inadequacies of traditional approaches to leadership, strategy, and organisational design. For many, this year has been a wake-up call, a clear sign that old models, rooted in assumptions of stability and linearity, no longer suffice.

Strategic thinking isn't just about setting a direction, it's about choosing paths that allow us to adapt and gain advantage amidst uncertainty. As Heinz von Foerster advises, "I shall act always to increase the total number of choices." This philosophy is invaluable today when resilience and flexibility are essential.

Increasing options offers flexibility and builds a more adaptive and resilient organisation. Expanding the range of possibilities avoids locking ourselves into rigid structures and fixed outcomes. Instead, we foster an environment where options evolve alongside circumstances.

Through my experiences leading in the British Army and consulting for various organisations, I have quickly understood that effective leadership requires constant adaptation and the ability to navigate conflicting demands.

Unfortunately, modern "thought leadership" often seems too narrow and fails to account for the complex factors that shape our reality.

In the rapidly shifting terrain of organisational management, debates around structure have become increasingly prominent. On one side, there are proponents of trendy frameworks like Holacracy, which advocate for flat, self-organising teams with distributed authority.

On the other hand, traditional hierarchical structures still hold sway, promising clarity and stability in decision-making. Yet, the real challenge facing organisations today isn't about choosing between hierarchy and flat structures.

I propose a holistic approach to enabling organisations to operate in increasing complexity and uncertainty, allowing them to be self-organising, self-regulating, and adaptable. This holistic approach looks to develop a synergy between the Viable Systems Model (VSM), the principles of Misson Command and a culture of decentralised decision-making.

It's no secret (unfortunately, some leaders haven't cottoned on). Still, the environment we operate in and navigate is complex and dynamic, with organisations continually evolving and responding to their context and environment. This environment is far from stable and requires the capability to support a certain degree of stability and coherence while being adaptable and ready to shift.