Content uploaded by Aura Codreanu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aura Codreanu on May 16, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
A VUCA ACTION FRAMEWORK
FOR A VUCA ENVIRONMENT.
LEADERSHIP CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS
Aura CODREANU
Regional Department of Defense Resources Management Studies,
Brasov, Romania
The 1990 coinage describing the surrounding environment as volatile, uncertain,
complex and agile (VUCA) is becoming a cliché in the absence of a more profound
analysis. To try and uncover its causes would take a comprehensive study that covers
multiple areas such as economy, sociology, psychology, history, etc. and that cannot
be covered in just few pages. Nonetheless, the reality it describes signals a high
need for intervention. Consequently, what this article proposes is an overview of
the possible solutions that leaders may have at their disposal or they can build in
order to counter the effects of the phenomena derived from such reality via vision,
understanding, clarity and agility (VUCA). Thus, its assumption is that by depicting
the overt aspects of the phenomena, possible solutions may emerge in the form of a
general action plan. Hence, the potential fl aw of the ideas to be expressed: the general
aspects need to be adapted and matched to specifi c environments, which hopefully
becomes possible should a specifi c mindset be assumed via the aforementioned
action framework.
Key words: volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity, vision, clarity, agility,
strategic leadership, environment, dissonance, entropy, disengagement.
1. FEATURES OF A VUCA
ENVIRONMENT
The VUCA acronym standing for
Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and
Ambiguous was coined in the military
after the Cold War to describe a new
emerging type of warfare. From this
perspective, the coinage was meant
to refer to:
“…a world order where the threats
are both diffuse and uncertain, where
confl ict is inherent yet unpredictable,
and where our capability to defend
and promote our national interests
may be restricted by materiel and
personnel resource constraints. In
short, an environment marked by
volatility, uncertainty, complexity,
and ambiguity (VUCA).”[1]
Nowadays, the acronym
accurately refl ects the consequences
of the high mobility of people and
goods triggered by state border
dissipation or reconfi guration at a
mental, technological and physical
level, as well as the evolving
technical interconnectivity.
Volatility captures sudden,
extreme and multi-layered
fl uctuations in economy, socio-
politics, geopolitics and indicates
the diffi culty of identifying and
describing these changes in a pattern
like manner as it used to be the case in
a stable world where certainty about
the course of events was the salient
feature. Thus, past experience and
best practices no longer provide solid
indicators for identifying solutions
for the present, or for the future.
Given the incapacity to read the
present through the lenses of past, that
is “to sift, discern or decide” [2] it
becomes obvious that the predictability
of future is more than uncertain, which
“makes forecasting extremely diffi cult
and decision making challenging”. [3]
Increased mobility of people
around the globe or simply the
burning of frontiers via intensive use
of technology, along with diversity
of mental patterns contributes to
an increased complexity of the
surrounding world and inherently
diffi culty in mastering if not at
least understanding the current
intricacies underlying the external
and internal environment of states and
organizations. As a result, systems’
complexity leads to fuzzy depictions of
the “causes and the ‘who, what, where,
how, and why’ behind the things that
are happening [that] are unclear and
hard to ascertain” [3]. Additionally,
“the ease of accessibility to, and
prevalence of, big data has only
increased this level of complexity,
and will continue to do so at an ever-
quickening pace”[2].
The ambiguity of the environment
is the result of all the above features. It
is rendered by the inability to provide
“yes/no” solutions and, hence, by the
multifariously valid alternatives that
might prove true depending on how,
when and where a butterfl y fl aps
its wings. The “it depends” answer
becomes prevalent and it proves
cumbersome for whoever has been
accustomed to living in a world in
which certainty about the future in
terms of present decisions, stability
of environmental factors, simplicity
in terms of expectations and polarity
in the world, clarity of game rules
were the norm. Moreover, as one
author exquisitely summarized the
conundrum: “Our decisions are only
as good as the view of the future they
rest on”[15].
But how can anyone tell whether
the surrounding environment can be
described as VUCA or it is prone
to evolving by VUCA features? In
this respect, there are a number of
symptoms [2] by which to diagnose
and intervene: dissonance or disbelief
in what is visible and tangible and
hence loss of/threat to comfort
zones; entropy or disorganization,
loss of purpose and perspective,
incapacity to further pursue goals
and “impaired effectiveness”;
disengagement or retreat from what
is hard to understand, withdrawal
into a comfort zone/group. All of the
above can become manifest at macro
organizational level, but also at group
and individual level.
What makes the difference in
terms of the cure to be chosen is the
level at which action is triggered. In
this respect, we believe that taking a
two-way perspective to a 5 P model
(philosophy, policy, programs,
processes, and practices), that can
be applied for any organization, can
yield good results. What that means
is for current practices to exist or
be molded in a desirable direction,
as well as the presence of a clear
cut philosophy. On the other hand,
whatever changes occur at the level
of practices, if they are in consonance
with the stated philosophy, then they
must naturally fl ow bottom to top,
moving and transforming processes,
as well. In this respect, the chapters
to follow are to build on this idea
more or less overtly.
2. A VUCA ACTION
FRAMEWORK
The solutions to the challenges
raised by a highly volatile, uncertain,
complex and ambiguous world
are proposed by Bob Johansen [4]
who suggests a positive reading
of the VUCA acronym as Vision,
Understanding, Clarity and
Agility. In a similar vein, Peter
Hinssen proposes the VACINE [5]
acronym to point out the need of
organizations for Velocity, Agility,
Creativity, Innovation, Network, and
Experimentation. Nonetheless, this
article is to approach the fi rst view,
since that actually presents both the
prerequisites necessary to be in place
(i.e. vision, understanding, clarity),
as well as the tangible result (i.e.
agility). On the other hand, Hinssen
makes valid suggestions through the
acronym proposed, but in our opinion
they overlap to a certain extent or
need to be in place at the same time
to produce results (i.e. creativity,
innovation and experimentation).
One of the concepts though would be
worth investigating, namely that of
“network”. Nonetheless, approaching
it would require a paper on its own and
therefore, at the risk of presenting an
incomplete perspective, this article is
not to cover it.
Based on the presentation of each
of the concepts proposed by Johansen
and by resorting to specialized
literature in the fi eld we aim to
establish the theoretical grounds
for identifying an action framework
that any leader could rely on when
challenged to make decisions on short
notice, with little if no information
whatsoever and simply probing the
consequences with no direct and
immediate evidence on these.
Thus, when it comes to vision, one
needs to have one is not forecasting
future, but creating future through
action [6]. In this respect, it is worth
noting that, if not stated as such, than
as part of any organization’s mission
statement the vision may go unnoticed
for lack of managers’ ability to actually
translate it into “changed business
practices” [7] which means that it
should be linked to specifi c behaviors,
structures, and practices”.
In this respect, to translate such a
vague word into a real life solution is
to look at it through the lenses of what
Charles Duhigg [16] calls “keystone
habits”, namely those routines at
individual, group or organization
level which, if identifi ed correctly and
hence acted upon, can lead to ripple
like change. Thus, vision is about
identifying the key priorities that
matter most and which, if approached,
“start to shift, dislodge and remake
other patterns”. Nonetheless, the real
diffi culty appears when it comes to
identifying what everyone agrees
as being important for running the
organization (even though they
may or may not explicitly state it as
such) while still clashing over the
means to make it important. Thus,
by identifying the key word that
sets the priorities and which is not
viewed as negotiable by either of the
stakeholders because it refl ects their
best interests, one can actually claim
to have a vision. And that only incurs
identifying the root causes that may
impede upon its realization and the
means by which the latter can be
best addressed. Consequently, vision
becomes a matter of identifying that
behavior which everybody trusts as
essential for their own interests, and
such agreement can only lead to the
sense of community and communion
that is required for any organization
to have.
For that, understanding becomes
a key word and entails a number of
requirements on behalf of leaders,
such as [8]: openness; accountability;
setting boundaries through clear
expectations and objectives;
willingness to tackle tough issues;
listening and relational skills;
regular communication; mirroring
the behavior you want to see; giving
trust to others.
Clarity is the opposite of
simplicity and certainty [9]. It is
more about direction, rather than
about the end point, and it incurs
“great fl exibility about the detail” [9].
Thus, if clarity is about the power to
admit lack of knowledge in a fi eld
and, hence, willingness and patience
to learn and gain new information
through dialogue and conversation,
certainty is impatient with multiple
viewpoints and favors crystal clear
rules and norms even when common
sense and reality contradicts them.
Clarity is required nowadays
to deal with complexity, even
though, as some literature in the
fi eld emphasizes, it is not so much
complexity as “complicatedness”
which makes organizations stall:
“…while complexity brings
immense challenges, it also offers
a tremendous opportunity for
companies. Increasingly, the winners
in today’s business environment are
those companies that know how to
leverage complexity and exploit it
to create competitive advantage.
The real curse is not complexity so
much as “complicatedness,” by
which we mean the proliferation
of cumbersome organizational
mechanisms—structures, procedures,
rules, and roles—that companies
put in place in an effort to deal
with the mounting complexity of
modern business (see the sidebar
“The Complicatedness Trap”). It is
this internal complicatedness, with its
attendant bureaucracy, that destroys a
company’s ability to leverage complexity
for competitive advantage. Even worse,
this organizational complicatedness
destroys a company’s ability to get
anything done. However, although
complicatedness is a curse, it is not the
fundamental root cause of the problem;
it is … only a by-product of outdated,
ineffectual, and irrelevant management
thinking and practices.” [10]
In terms of how to achieve clarity
over complicatedness, Morrieux
and Tollman [10] suggest rules that
are related to understanding the root
causes of employee performance, as
well as several means to encourage
cooperation rather than competition.
Thus, as far as performance goes,
the authors suggest that in order to
properly react to a complex world
and avoid complicatedness, people
behavior and performance need to be
interpreted and intervened upon in
relation with organization behavior.
The latter is actually dictated by
the interplay among organization
structures, overall performance
measures and indicators, incentives,
systems and subsystems that shape
the goals, resources and constraints
that ultimately direct or restrict action
and decision making. Therefore,
understanding the context of employee
behavior from the aforementioned
perspective can bring clarity over
what works and what does not and
avoids making piecemeal decisions
like restructuring, transforming,
expanding, etc. to the detriment of
critical nodes based improvements.
Concerning the means by
which cooperation can be achieved,
Morrieux and Tollman encourage using
integrators as a role to be assumed by
anyone in a management position,
rather than resorting to or establishing
positions labeled as coordinators, cross
functional groups, etc. that only add
up to the level of complicatedness. To
assume such a role several prerequisites
are necessary:
• the management position has
the power to generate value (in
this respect, the health check
questions by which to have the
position at all are: what would
happen if the position would
not exist?, how would team
members cooperate?), as well
as the interest to do so.
• the rules imposed on the
management position selected
to act as an integrator are few
and simple so that whoever fi lls
it can encourage people use their
autonomy and judgment, rather
than becoming disengaged
as a result of performing
activities without real value to
the organization, or stumbling
against cumbersome decision
making silos.
• the person acting as an
integrator is given the freedom
to set goals, success criteria,
evaluate and reward result based
performance and not behavior
based performance, rather than
being imposed all of the above.
Nonetheless, one of the
most important highlights of the
aforementioned authors is the
following: “Beyond a certain
threshold, clarity only encourages
mechanistic compliance and
“checking the box” behaviors, as
opposed to the engagement and
initiative to make things work.”
In conclusion, for clarity to
emerge, people accountability,
process accountability, discipline and
integrity should be key ingredients.
In other words, “Accountability plus
discipline equals integrity and results
in clarity”. [12]
Agility is related to being
“networked and fl exible, lightweight,
and replicable” [13]. When it comes
to organizations, agility is about
withstanding diffi culties by changing
in a fl exible and swift manner [5]. In
this respect, Patrick Hollingworth
[2] uses two important metaphors to
depict the differences between linear
based, traditional organizations
anchored into long term planning
and agile organizations, namely the
expedition style climbing and alpine
style climbing:
“Expedition style is all about
identifying an outcome, and then
doing whatever it takes to ensure it
is won. It has a ‘summit at all costs'
mentality. Once the goal has been
attained, once the climbers have
returned to base camp, they can
go home – the game has been won.
Expedition style is extrinsically
motivated, focusing only on the goal,
leading to problems with goalodicy
and increased exposure to the
fallibilities of poor leadership.
Alpine style, on the other hand,
is intrinsically motivated, focusing
on the task at hand. The reward
is learning from the journey as a
whole, rather than just the moment
of attaining the goal.”
If agility is to be approached
from a leadership perspective [14],
it refers to two types of ability: one
focused on results, and the other on
people.
Thus, according to Mulcahy and
Meister, an agile leader focused on
results is:
• transparent, namely able to
share information and take
immediate and adequate action
upon positive or negative
feedback;
• accountable in terms of:
allowing people and himself/
herself to learn from mistakes
and thus take and not shun
responsibility, and clarifying
behaviors expected for
established goals;
• intrapreneurial, namely keen
on identifying opportunities
and encouraging others to act
imaginatively and courageously;
• focused on the future by
encouraging innovation,
experimentation and giving credit
whenever the case may be.
When it comes to working with
people, the landmarks of leadership
agility are related to the capacity to:
• resort to team work by
identifying the right team leaders
behaviors and encouraging them,
as well as allowing for team work
to become part of the functions
that are characteristic of a human
resource management system;
• promote inclusiveness by
cherishing and encouraging
both the diversity of employees’
social and professional
backgrounds, as well as the
diversity of opinions via
formal events like “community
and civic diversity projects and
cross-cultural organizational
initiatives from community
days to hackathons”;
• encourage learning not
only from formal dedicated
programs, but especially from
non-formal media, as well
sharing and dissemination of
information.
The barriers to agility raised
within complex (and not necessarily
complicated) organizations that are
designed to react as part of a stable
environment, are [11]: hierarchical
structures, well established routines,
“conventional strategy making
process” that is not only about a time
frame (3-5 years for strategic planning)
within which events evolve at a much
higher pace than the development of
strategies, but also a given leadership
“mindset” acquired as a result of people
not fi lling a position long enough
which does not allow them to become
proactive, complacency, adversity to
taking risks, and paralysis by analysis.
In this respect, the signals that allow
detecting the existence of such
stumbling blocks are: “ ‘silo’ mentality,
confl icting departmental priorities
and goals, slow response times,
processes becoming disconnected
from the customer or from each other,
duplication of effort, lengthy decision
making, political behaviour and lack of
accountability” [11].
3. CONCLUSIONS
All of the above considered, it
becomes obvious that the VUCA
perspective on tackling a VUCA
environment is but a reemphasis of
ideas that already underpin traditional
approaches to management. Thus, in
our opinion, the action framework
that can be proposed under such
circumstances needs to be simply a
reminder of what most organization
employees are empirically aware
of and yet, forget to put in practice,
when reaching leadership positions.
In this respect, one possible high
level approach, which in our opinion,
does not necessarily provide a tangible
solution to leadership in a VUCA
environment is that proposed by
Harry R. Yarger [17]: “The role of the
strategist is to exercise infl uence over
the volatility, manage the uncertainty,
simplify the complexity, and resolve
the ambiguity, all in terms favorable
to the interests of the state and in
compliance with policy guidance.”
Nonetheless, two ideas are worth
remembering from the above quote.
First, awareness of the best interest of
a higher authority, and we could add,
more often than not, to the detriment
of the best interests of individuals
or groups, is essential. Second, a
compliant behavior is mandatory.
But here, the challenge that leaders
and not strategists need to tackle
concerns the compliance framework
and the extent to which that impedes
upon the very idea of acquiring an
agile state of mind and action.
Consequently, the principles that are
worth underlining are presented below.
Principle 1: Trust your instincts
to make decisions, as long as you
are a professional and hence your
“guesses” are educated ones. It is
only thus that setting and following a
vision from a pattern based behavior
perspective becomes possible.
Principle 2: Assume
accountability for your actions and
thus empower other to do the very
same. In other words, to be a leader
in a VUCA environment is simply
setting an example and requiring
the others to follow. But to do that
and ensure the right decisions are
made, accountability should become
the keystone for attitudes and their
related behavior.
Principle 3. Talk the talk and
walk the walk. Leadership is not
only about preaching, but also about
setting an example. Nonetheless,
one is not possible without the other,
which means that for people to follow,
they need fi rst to understand. In other
words, taking people’s understanding
for granted and asking them to
replicate the leader’s behavior is
nothing but a huge leadership mistake.
REFERENCES
[1]Roderick R. Magee II, ed., Strategic
Leadership Primer, Carlisle Barracks,
PA: U.S. Army War College, 1998, p.
1 quoted in Harry R. Yarger, Strategic
Theory for the 21st Century: The Little
Book On Big Strategy (Carlisle Barracks,
PA: U.S. Army War College, Strategic
Studies Institute, 2006), available at 17.
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA444141
pp.17-18, last retrieved August 2016.
[2] Patrick Hollingworth (2016) The Light
and Fast Organisation: A new way of dealing
with uncertainty, John Wiley & Sons.
[3] (Sullivan, 2012a) in Michael
Brazzel, Brenda B. Jones (2014)
The NTL Handbook of Organization
Development and Change: Principles,
Practices, and Perspectives, 2nd Edition,
Pfeiffer, ISBN: 9781118485811.
[4] Quoted in Michael Brazzel, Brenda
B. Jones (2014) The NTL Handbook
of Organization Development and
Change: Principles, Practices, and
Perspectives, 2nd Edition, Pfeiffer,
ISBN: 9781118485811.
[5] Peter Hinssen (2015) The Network
Always Wins, McGraw-Hill.
[6] Bob Johansen (2007) Get There
Early, Berrett-Koehler Publishers,
ISBN: 9781576754405.
[7] Paul Gibbons (2015) The Science of
Successful Organizational Change: How
Leaders Set Strategy, Change Behavior,
and Create an Agile Culture, Pearson
Business, ISBN: 9780133994834.
[8] Viki Holton, Angela Jowitt, Pam
Jones (2016) How to Coach Your Team,
FT Publishing International.
[9] Robert Johansen (2012) Leaders
Make the Future, 2nd Edition,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, ISBN:
9781609944889.
[10] YVES MORIEUX, PETER
TOLLMAN (2014) Six Simple Rules.
How to Manage Complexity without
Getting Complicated, Harvard Business
Review Press,Boston, Massachusetts.
[11] Linda Holbeche (2015) The
Agile Organization, Kogan Page, ISBN:
9780749471323.
[12] James T. Brown (2014) The
Handbook of Program Management.
How to facilitate project success with
optimal program management, second
edition, McGraw-Hill.
[13] Bob Johansen (2007) Get There
Early, Berrett-Koehler Publishers,
ISBN: 9781576754405.
[14] Kevin Mulcahy, Jeanne
Meister (2016) The Future Workplace
Experience: 10 Rules For Mastering
Disruption in Recruiting and Engaging
Employees, McGraw-Hill.
[15] Gordon, Adam (2008) Future
Savvy: Identifying Trends to Make
Better Decisions, Manage Uncertainty,
and Profi t from Change, AMACOM.
[16] Duhigg, Charles (2012) The
Power of Habit. How we do what we
do and how to change. Random House
Books, London, pp. 100-106.
[17] Harry R. Yarger, Strategic Theory
for the 21st Century: The Little Book On
Big Strategy (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S.
Army War College, Strategic Studies
Institute, 2006), available at 17. http://
handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA444141
p.18, last retrieved August 2016.
