Michael Lissack
Pace layering. Organizations explicitly distinguish between fast-changing and slow-changing elements rather than attempting uni- form evolution. When professional services firm Accenture implemented its “TQ” (Technology Quotient) framework, it separated rapidly evolving technical skills from more stable consulting principles, creating different development approaches for different evolutionary speeds. Deliberate legacy maintenance. Organizations intentionally pre- serve certain elements while rapidly evolving others. When consumer goods company P&G manages brand portfolios, it distinguishes between “Heritage Elements” that should remain consistent and “Innovation Zones” open to rapid iteration, preventing wholesale disruption while enabling continuous improvement. Rhythm coordination. Organizations create mechanisms for syn- chronizing different-speed elements at key points rather than forcing uni- form pacing. When technology company Adobe transitioned to cloud services, it implemented “Convergence Points” where rapidly evolving product features reconnected with more stable architectural foundations, maintaining coherence across different development speeds. These approaches create what complexity scientist Stuart Kauffman called “patching”—different parts of the system changing at different rates while maintaining overall coherence. Rineccoonmcpillienxgsfyustnedmams ental tensions Leading for coherence requires not just acknowledging but actively reconciling fundamental tensions that exist in complex organizations. Unlike traditional management approaches that often seek to eliminate tensions through either/or choices, effective complexity leadership recog- nizes that these tensions are not problems to be solved but polarities to be managed—interdependent opposites that require ongoing balance rather than permanent resolution.
362
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease