Bob Johansen is the CEO of the Institute For The Future and author Leaders Make the Future.
Ability to see through messes and contradictions to a future that others cannot yet see. Leaders are very clear about what they are making, but very flexible about how it gets made.
Although it has always been an enduring leadership trait, clarity will have new importance in the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA) world. Global security will require new kinds of leadership. For example, the Bush administration’s reasons for going into Iraq were very clear in advance, but their assessment regarding weapons of mass destruction was later proven to be inaccurate. Bush won a second term even after his decisions that led to the Iraq War were extensively debated and exposed as flawed.
The electorate still decided that George Bush was clear and decisive, but John Kerry was not. Apparently the fact that Bush was clear was more important than the fact that he was wrong.
Both the good and bad sides of clarity will become increasingly apparent in the world of the future, even more apparent than they are today. Politicians will have a particularly difficult time being both clear and accurate—given the complexities that we will all be facing and the public demand for clarity. Some situations are just not clear, but it is hard for politicians to say that without recourse. When people are confused, they want clarity—even if it’s wrong.
Clarity Defined
Clarity in leadership is the ability to:
• See through messes and contradictions.
• See a future that others cannot yet see.
• Find a viable direction to proceed.
• See hope on the other side of trouble.
As volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity increase, there will be many people wanting to be led out of the mess. Clarity will be a prerequisite for compelling leadership. As the world gets more confusing, it will become harder to see through to a better future. The best leaders are seers and sensors. The future will be loaded with contradictions, but leaders with clarity will need to see through those contradictions and have the ability to discern what to do and where to go, when neither is apparent. In order to grapple with complex questions, leaders will need to resist the temptation to oversimplify and give the easy answers that many people crave. One of the most difficult dilemmas for leaders will be providing clarity without inducing false hope. They will need to devise plans that are precise and simple. By combining wisdom from the past with a vision for the future they will need to navigate seemingly absurd situations and see the opportunities hidden within.
Clarity requires inner strength and discipline. Although they will no doubt experience hopelessness, leaders with clarity will still be determined to engage with the VUCA world and pull everything together in a way that is unmistakably practical.
Clarity requires great self-knowledge, so leaders will have to look within and sort out what is most important to them.
Clarity requires external engagement. Leaders must express themselves clearly in ways that inspire others to follow, and be able to make sharp statements about plans for the future with an enthusiasm that attracts others.
Clarity requires flexibility. The best leaders will be clear about their long-term intentions, but very flexible about how to get there. Clarity sets the parameters within which creativity can occur. As with jazz, the structure sets the limits within which improvisation is encouraged.
A stereotype is false clarity: an oversimplified label that puts a person or a group in a box. A stereotype presents the illusion of understanding, but is actually more likely to result in dangerous misconceptions and estrangement for both the person who is stereotyping and the one being stereotyped. Leaders should resist falling prey to stereotypes, but the future forces of the next decade will make that very difficult.
Leaders with clarity have authentic future intent. That is to say, they remain true to an inner purpose. One leader’s clarity may make others uncomfortable or may even lead to polarization. Still, if all sides are clear, the disagreements will at least be authentic, and people want authenticity in their leaders.