How uncertainty should be changing your strategy
Do you know how to achieve your desired outcome? If yes, you have a low degree of uncertainty about what works. If no, you must have a high degree of uncertainty about what works. Both experiences are common. Both experiences are valid. But they are not the same. Managing a strategy with low vs high uncertainty demands a different mindset and process.
Clayton Christensen describes two states of strategic management: emergent and deliberate. When I first heard Clayton’s examples, the image of two explorers appeared in my mind. One explorer is trying to find the treasure with only a metal detector. The other explorer has a map, guiding her straight there. The difference isn’t that one explorer is wiser, smarter or more astute. The difference is that one has been there before; allowing her to lean on a pre-made map.
‘Emergent’ strategy is when the best route to arrive at the destination is still unknown (we have high uncertainty). Once the map is revealed (we have low uncertainty), we can switch to a ‘deliberate’ strategy; a set of interrelated choices, each helping us turn at the right corners and charge ahead in the right moments.
Tactically, what does this mean?
Emergent strategy is for high uncertainty. Working with high uncertainty requires shorter feedback loops to gain new information with which you can change tactics or direction. Ongoing inquiry is used to gather specific knowledge to answer questions that if wrong, would radically derail your chances of success.
Deliberate strategy is for low uncertainty. Working with low uncertainty gives you freedom to operate on longer time horizons with less interference along the way. You don’t need new knowledge to explore the most effective set of tactics or choices, rather you use data to validate that it’s still working.
So how do you determine where uncertainty lies?
Using existing evidence is the ideal way to determine a) what tactics are most likely to be effective, b) what tactics require further validation, and c) where we simply have no idea how to make progress. An existing track record is like a cheat sheet — you’re peering at someone else’s map to leapfrog ahead.
Explore evidence across three domains to help determine uncertainty:
Problem: is there compelling evidence explaining why the problem persists? Not just what the problem is, but the factors or conditions holding it in place.
Intervention: do you have a weak or strong sense of the causal mechanisms to overcome the problem? Put another way, is it known what or who can unlock change, and what it takes to influence this or them?
Enablers: does the evidence suggest that a certain environment is necessary for the intervention to succeed? How might you check whether the same or similar conditions exist in your environment?
Once you have a strong sense of the existing track record and evidence base, you will naturally start to form a view on what works. If the evidence is clear, that view will be strong and you will probably find yourself with low uncertainty (opting for a deliberate strategy). If the evidence is unclear or lacking altogether, then you’ll find yourself with high uncertainty, most likely pioneering a new way of doing things until you reveal the map yourself (opting for an emergent strategy).
Two final considerations to keep in mind.
1. Emergent and deliberate aren’t binary.
It’s possible to have the left half of the map filled and the right half of the map missing. Imagine you’re working in housing. You may know the most common drivers of homelessness in your region, and know how to find suitable accommodation. But don’t yet have an efficient way to connect people to housing or know how to sustain housing beyond 12 months.
2. Emergent and deliberate require different management.
A different set of questions and mindset are required to manage these strategic styles. This may seem obvious but I’m surprised by how often the two are accounted for in the exact same way. For example, when people ask the same kind of questions, expect the same kind of outcomes, and adopt the same focus on learning, irrespective of the style.
In an emergent strategy, the team should be encouraged to be inquisitive and be capable of making decisions on the go. They should set learning questions or hypotheses up front to guide an intentional learning agenda. Management should ask probing questions and focus on interrogating how they are using incoming data or feedback to inform their strategic choices. Management should also create an environment that enables experimentation and fast changes.
In a deliberate strategy, the team should be encouraged to optimize for delivery. They should focus on strengthening the capabilities required for execution, cut inefficiencies, and design for scale. Management can hold them accountable to clear and time-bound outcomes, and most probably approve a longer term plan with fewer check-ins along the way.
Understanding uncertainty, and communicating this, is key to knowing how to set and manage strategy. Force this kind of clarity up front to give rise to cleaner delivery down the line.
