Content uploaded by Derek Cabrera
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Derek Cabrera on Mar 06, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
This is a draft preprint chapter from a forthcoming manuscript. Citation information as follows: Cabrera, L.,
Cabrera, D., and Gibson, H. (2021) Leapfrog Leaders: Accelerating Systems Leadership Skills. In, Routledge
Handbook of Systems Thinking, (Eds) Cabrera, D., Cabrera, L. and Midgley, G. Routledge. London, UK.
Leapfrog Leaders
How lowlighting content, and highlighting cognitive structure and dynamics
can leapfrog leaders to the next level.
Derek Cabrera Laura Cabrera Hise Gibson
𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐, 𝑑,𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐, 𝑑,𝑏
a: Cornell University, b: United States Military Academy at West Point, Department of Systems
Engineering, c: Cornell Human Ecology, d: Cabrera Research Lab
Keywords: SOT | leadership | DSRP | VMCL | leapfrog effect | CAS | thinking skills | far transfer
Abstract: We need leaders who can execute at the Strategic, Operational, and Tactical (SOT) levels. But,
research shows it takes time for skills to develop at all three levels—too much time. Why does it take too
much time? First, because expertise is borne of experience. An expert’s intuition requires time on task—
mistake-making, in-the-trenches, experiential learning that cannot be replaced by any amount of formal
training, and this happens over time. Second, the cognitive skills required at one level of SOT, appear
different from those required at another level of SOT. For example, tactical thinking is seen as a different
set of skills than those needed for strategic thinking. In this paper, we propose that while number 1 above
is a necessary condition, number 2 above is not. Leaders can be taught to “leapfrog” from a tactical
understanding, to an operational understanding, to a strategic one, not only by spending time in those new
areas of leadership, but by learning new structural thinking approaches informed by Systems Thinking
(DSRP) and Systems Leadership (VMCL). These structural approaches to thinking offer the underlying
principles of both systems thinking and systems leadership. Once understood, they are easily applied
across strategic, operational and tactical contexts as well as problem solving. This paper offers an
overview of three things necessary for this application: (1) the four underlying Structures (DSRP) of
systems thinking; (2) the powerful dynamics among them; and (3) the four inherent functions of all
organizations that guide systems leadership (VMCL). We review individual thinking and leadership skills
that can enhance one’s ability to think complexly when faced with complex phenomena and that can
significantly reduce learning and preparation time in developing leaders. We propose that these three
skills allow the organizational leader to benefit from far transfer by applying complex cognitive
algorithms that they possess at one level (one that is experientially well known to them) to other levels of
scale (those that are less experientially known to them). We describe these thinking skills and then apply
them to two real-world case examples: (1) military leadership and (2) corporate leadership.
1
What is SOT?
SOT, refers to three levels of military planning that include: Strategic, Operational and Tactical.
Generally speaking, operational levels of planning connect the detailed tactical level to a higher level
strategy and vision [1]. SOT is, “One of the most useful military concepts for business” and:
“It provides a frame-work for understanding organizational leadership, dynamics, and
management, as well as their interplay in achieving results. The framework also helps to generate
optimal alignment between strategy, the operational level plans that break the strategy into
manageable pieces, the institutional systems and processes needed to enable successful execution,
as well as the tactics, techniques, and procedures that are applied by the organization’s front-line
employees and supervisors in their day-to-day jobs and tasks [2].”
In simple terms SOT is defined in military doctrine,
“The Strategic level deals with “WHY and WITH WHAT we will fight and WHY the enemy
fights against us...the Operational level of war determines WHAT we will affect, with WHAT
courses of action, in WHAT order, for WHAT duration, and with WHAT RESOURCES...the
tactical level of war deals with HOW we fight [3,4].”
SOT can be thought of as "levels" and therefore is often framed using a metaphor of elevation
where the Strategic is the 100,000 foot level, Operational is the 50,000 foot level, Tactical is the 1,000
foot level, and ground-level or sea-level (0 feet) is the the individual and task level (Figure 1).
Figure 1: SOT Scales.
SOT is a useful framework for military and business leaders. But, current day leaders in a VUCA
[5] (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous) reality must do more than command and control from
a distant hillside. They must ensure that S, O, and T levels are integrally aligned. They must be fluid in
2
their ability to traverse quickly between levels. This skill takes time and experience to master. Yet, we
increasingly need more leaders to master it, in faster time, with less field experience. But how? It may be
impossible to erase the need for time-tested experience, but can we significantly reduce the time-on-task it
takes to gain these skills?
The Developmental Costs of Getting to SOT
Organizations want individuals who are agile and can operate a VUCA world. The challenge
comes with the implementation of the necessary framework that can create the knowledge, skills, and
behaviors for leaders to operate in the ambiguity. For example the Army takes a three-pronged approach
to leadership. It is based on educational experiences, on the job training, and experiential opportunities in
concert with a lot of repetition and the ability to fail fast and fail often.
The educational portion happens at each level. Initial entry is at the 4 year mark, 10 mark, and 20
year mark. At each engagement there is a deliberate decision to pull the leader toward operating at the
strategic level. Frameworks are presented, practiced and reinforced in the sterile environment of a
classroom setting, and then immediately leveraged in the next assignment. The foundational education is
ingrained in the student at an accelerated pace through crucible experiences, experiences that create
high-stress. The real cost to transitioning leaders to an SOT way of operating is through time and
repetition. The fiscal cost for resident education can be in excess of $50,000 per student for a year,
excluding individual salaries. Once students operate in their net organization, they might find themselves
in a crucible experience at the Joint Readiness Center where the Army practices combat maneuvers each
month. The cost of this experience is approximately one-million dollars per day and enables the training
of over 11,000 Soldiers at one time during a 30-day evolution.
These combined experiences create a mental model that allows the leader to operate in
uncomfortable situations in a comfortable way because they already have a boundary condition. Even if
the situation is completely new, the systems thinking framework of DSRP is baked into military
frameworks organically. Leaders have created routines and can recombine or “audible” to create effective
outcomes.
Leapfrogging Leaders to Minimize the Developmental
Cost of SOT
The developmental costs of SOT’ing are expensive. Identifying ways to decrease the time-to-skill
represents a significant efficiency and cost savings. Leapfrogging1is a systems concept that is used to
describe situations where a set of steps or evolutions, considered necessary, are skipped or “leapt over.”
This paper attempts to deconstruct some of the necessary skills leaders must develop in order to become
1A classic example of a “leapfrog” technology and its leapfrog effects is the mobile phone and the fact that a fair amount of less
developed countries “leapfrogged” over the industrial era need for telephone poles and infrastructure and adopted cellular phones
and networks.
3
“leapfrog leaders''—to skip some (not all) of the steps and experience needed prior to demonstrating a
skill in the area of SOT’ing.
Additionally, Leapfrog Leaders understand and apply systems thinking (DSRP) [6–12] (See Table 1) and
systems leadership (VMCL2) [13–15] (See Table 2) in their daily work. A meta-analysis of the
interdisciplinary literature on cognition [6] on systems thinking [10] reveals four universal patterns that
provide the underlying structure of systems thinking and mental models. These four skills are:
Structural Patterns
Co-implying Elements
Making Distinctions (D): Distinguishing one idea/thing (an
identity) from another idea/thing (other).
identity (i) ↔ other (o)
Organizing Systems (S): Grouping ideas together into part
whole systems.
part (p) ↔ whole (w)
Identifying Relationships (R): Seeing action & reaction
relationships between and among ideas.
action (a) ↔ reaction (r)
Taking Perspectives (P): Looking at ideas or systems of
ideas from different points of view.
point (p) ↔ view (v)
Table 1. Basic Universal Structures of Cognition/Systems Thinking
Systems thinkers make distinctions (identity-other) between and among things and ideas. They
consciously use distinctions to challenge existing norms, labels, and definitions and to identify biases in
the way information is structured. Systems thinkers know that changing the way ideas are organized
changes meaning itself. They constantly consider context by asking “what is this a part of?” in order to
see how things fit into larger wholes than is normally done. They identify relationships (action-reaction)
between and among things and ideas. Systems thinkers use relationships to show dynamical interactions
between things and ideas, including feedback loops to show reciprocal relations. They look at ideas from
different perspectives (point-view) and understand that every time we make a distinction (including
identifying relationships and systems), we are doing so from a particular perspective. Systems thinkers
use perspectives to rethink distinctions, relationships, and/or systems. They move beyond human or
animal perspectives (i.e., “perspectives with eyes”) by taking conceptual perspectives (i.e., seeing a
phenomenon from the perspective of an idea or thing).
Leaders can learn these four patterns and their eight elements in literally a matter of minutes. This
first step is the easy part of learning systems thinking. The next step, turns out to be significantly more
difficult for people to master. Not because it is inherently difficult to master however, but because our
education and training from an early age often either thwarts our natural inclination to think in—fractal,
combinatorial, exponential, nonlinear, recursive, or systemic ways—or because it encourages the opposite
sorts of thinking (e.g., linear causality, discrete categorization, strict hierarchies, and scale-dependent
models). This second step is to practice the art and science of “mixing and matching” 4 simple things that
2VMCL are the four functions of Systems Leadership—Vision, Mission, Capacity, and Learning.
4
can create an infinite amount of adaptivity and complexity. Leaders—especially military leaders—who
learn this second step well, will be more capable of applying understandings that are “old hat” and
understood to novel situations. Systems Leadership (VMCL) offers the four functions that occur naturally
in all systems, as applied to human organizations:
Four universal functions:
Vision (V): The future or goal state.
Mission (M): The elements of daily work needed to accomplish the Vision.
Capacity (C): The System of systems in an organization that make it possible to do the mission.
Learning (L): The purposeful efforts to seek and use feedback to improve an organization's capacital systems.
Table 2. The VMCL Theory of Systems Leadership: Universal Functions of Organizations
Of particular note is not only the four components of VMCL shown in Table 2, but also the
critical coupling between and among them [13]. In other words, there must be a notable and direct
relationship between the daily work explicated in the mission (M) and the goal articulated in the Vision
(V). Additionally, all systems should be expressly designed to execute the mission. Lastly, any system or
organization will only thrive if it purposefully seeks and responds to feedback from its external
environment—this is how organizations become both agile and adaptive.
Leapfrog Leadership requires an understanding and application of systems thinking and also
systems (organizational) leadership. This foundational understanding further yields important practices
that comprise the daily work of Leapfrog Leaders. In this paper we will transform SOT from an adjective
into the verb, “SOT’ing.” We define SOT’ing thus:
SOT verb.The ability to simultaneously think and take action at strategic, operational, and
tactical levels and to move fluidly between them to achieve goals, insight, and alignment; moving
from forest to trees and back with ease. verb: SOT, as in “go SOT that!”; 3rd person present:
SOT’s; past tense: SOT’d; past participle: SOT’d; gerund or present participle: SOT’ing SOT’d,
SOT’ing, SOT it! The new guy SOT’d so unexpectedly well that everyone wondered how he had
leapfrogged his way to this ability without the requisite amount of experience.
The Leapfrog Leader is the leader who identifies and practices strategies to leapfrog the learning
curve of SOT'ing, thus decreasing the net-amount of time-on-task it takes to develop the ability to fluidly
traverse the SOT scales. There are eight strategies we've identified that Leapfrog Leaders utilize:
SOT’ing Leapfrog Leader Skills:
1. Lowlighting (Content): Avoiding the content-bias that things that look different ARE different;
2. Highlighting (Structure): Seeing the structural patterns and similarities across SOT scale rather
than seeing the differences in the content;
3. Mixing: Mixing atomic structures (DSRP) in simple ways to yield more complex molecular
structures that act as placeholders for necessary information (i.e., structural predictions);
4. Fractaling (Structure): Seeing the fractal structures are repeating across the SOT scale. Realizing
that the effective complexity of SOT scales is equal;
5
5. Throughlining: Seeing the throughline that connects the storyline across SOT scales (e.g, asking:
how does x play out at lower/higher scales);
6. Elevationing: Realizing that SOT scale differences are caused by the perspectival
transformations of "elevation" (e.g., 100k, 50k, 1k);
7. Grounding: Utilizing an approximating and incremental approach (ST Loop) and getting
constant real-world “on the ground” feedback that causes mental model adaptation; and
8. Functional Naming: Name things at the S-level for their POSIWID purpose (functions) so that at
the O and T levels a task is contextualized by its purpose (i.e., makes throughlining possible).
All of these skills are based on DSRP Systems Thinking and some on VMCL Systems
Leadership. If we think of the DSRP structures (and elements) as “atomic” the list of SOT’ing skills
above are “molecular”—that is, they are composites of one or more of the atomic elements. Let’s go
through each one.
Lowlighting and Highlighting
In over two decades of developing and researching the acquisition of systems thinking skills in
populations from K-12 classrooms to corporate boardrooms, including middle management and c-suite
management of Fortune 100 companies and governmental and nongovernmental organizations we have
learned that there are two critical challenges that aspiring systems thinkers must overcome. These
challenges exist for several reasons; (1) they are not obvious so they are not easy to identify, (2) they are
not always intuitive especially in regard to the social training we receive from an early age that either
rewards us for doing the opposite or fails to incentivize us to develop these skills, and (3) few have made
these skills explicit such that an aspiring leader can purposefully and consciously understand them and
choose to develop them.
The two skills are quite simple: (1) lowlight content and (2) highlight structure. Let’s explore
each and then see how they work together.The first step in SOT’ing requires leapfrog leaders to lowlight
content and highlight structure (and occasionally alternate between the two). Lowlighting content actually
helps leaders to avoid the content-bias that things that look different are different. Rather, because leaders
can lowlight content (for a brief or prolonged moment depending on the circumstances) and subsequently
highlight underlying patterns and structures, they are able to see that things that appear wildly different
on the surface, are in fact structurally similar or the same.
Lowlight Content
It is anathema to lowlight content. We pride ourselves on knowing, learning, and reciting content
which consists of the details or the nitty gritty facts or observations of the actual situation. From an early
age we are tasked with identifying the details of a novel and reporting them or with answering the
question with specifics and detail. How then can it be said that such detailed content should be lowlighted
or even temporarily ignored? The answer is two-fold.
First we should lowlight the content details precisely because we have been taught to highlight it
almost exclusively, at the expense of seeing important patterns and connection between and among
6
information that can shape our decision-making.We are biased toward content. In other words, if the goal
is to stand up straight and we know that you have a tendency to lean left, then you must over adjust to the
right in order to find the center.
The second reason is that in any given system under observation there are surface level details
that we see but there is also the underlying structure we often miss in our assessment of things. We all
know that a capable lawyer, for example, can argue convincingly the facts to sway your opinion. Yet, only
when one looks at the underlying structure of the argument can one identify its flaws. Of course, we are
not advocating that the details don’t matter. They do matter, a lot. But our bias toward the details and
away from the structure means that we must “find our center” and, at least temporarily in our analysis,
lowlight or ignore the content detail. It should be noted that even when we have worked extensively with
aspiring systems thinkers and they have come to understand and agree with the points above, it remains
challenging for them to actually do it in practice. We see them inevitably lean back to their default or
learned settings and over-rely on the content of the situation.
Highlight Structure
When we say highlight structure we mean highlight the DSRP structures and elements. Let’s take
a look at a simple case example which also happens to be the origin story for graph and network theory
(one of the most pervasively used and interdisciplinary tools in the science toolbox). Leonid Euler was a
polymath who lived in 18th century Prussia. He solved one of the unsolved problems of his day called the
Konigsberg problem [16,17]. The city of Konigsberg, Prussia was made up of four land areas divided by
river tributaries and connected by 7 bridges. The people of Konigsberg always wondered if it were
possible to visit each land area while only crossing any of the seven bridges once. It was a question that
laid beyond their mathematical grasp. Euler had an idea. He abstracted the land masses to simple nodes
and the bridges to edges or relationships as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Lowlighting Content, Highlighting Structure.
This “simplification” lowlighted the bewildering detail of the actual city and highlighted its
underlying structure, allowing Euler to solve the puzzle: it turned out not to be possible. In the process,
Euler had invented what would become known as modern graph or network theory.
Decades of our research shows the specific things systems thinkers do, irrespective of topic or
context. First, they are aware of the structure underlying their thinking and know that what they know
evolves from listening to external feedback. As a result, while they factor their mental models into
discussion, they also question the accepted constructs (especially during problem definition processes).
They also provide new constructs, and are open to changing their own mental models to better fit the
7
reality of any given situation. Leapfrog Leaders often recognize that invisible structures may be at play
that shape the behavior of actors or agents in the situation at hand.
Mixing
Mixing refers to the habit of mixing (and matching) the atomic structures (DSRP) in simple ways
to yield more complex molecular structures that act as placeholders for necessary information (i.e.,
structural predictions [18–20]). The purpose of structural mixing using DSRP is to create structural
predictions. Structural predictions are predictions that the leapfrog leader makes about the likely
structures that exist in the system under review. These probable structures are, as you might expect,
structural and do not at first have content (information) contained in the structure. But, the existence of
the structure necessitates information and therefore tells the leapfrog leader what specifically to look for.
For example, if we use the part-whole cognitive algorithm and you tell me that there are three villages (in
a known insurgent area) that you need to better understand we can immediately know that there might be
parts of the villages that are of importance. We might use the perspective algorithm to figure out which.
So, for example, we may want to use the perspectives of leadership, resources, history, and risk to break
down the villages into parts. As an example of the structural predictions, the combination of these
structures yields a structural framework that requires “answers'' to be “filled in (See Figure 3).”
Figure 3: Using Probable Structure to Generate Organized Information.
Mixing and matching the atomic structures can occur at a basic level (involving the DSRP
structures or “Pattern level”) or at a more advanced level by mixing the elements (i.e., identity-other,
part-whole, action-reaction, point-view). Let’s take a look at beginner-level mixing:
Mix & Match
Distinction
System
Relationship
Perspective
Distinction
—
“Distinguish the System”
means take any grouping
of elements and give it a
name.
“Distinguish the
Relationship” means to
label any Relationship
between two
things/ideas.
“Distinguish the
Perspective” means to
contrast an existing
Perspective to consider
alternative points of view.
8
System
“Systematize the
Distinction” means
break any thing/idea
down into parts.
—
“Systematize the
Relationship” means
breaking any relationship
down into parts.
“Systematize the
Perspective” means break
any Perspective down
into parts.
Relationship
“Relate the
Distinction” means
relate any thing/idea
to other things/ideas.
“Relate the System ''
means relate all the wholes
to other wholes or relate
the parts of the whole to
each other.
—
“Relate the Perspective”
means look for
relationships between or
among different
Perspectives.
Perspective
“Perspectivize the
Distinction” means to
take a perspective
from any idea/thing.
“Perspectivize the System”
means to turn any System
into a perspective in which
its parts might have
slightly different views on
things.
“Perspectivize the
Relationship” means to
turn any Relationship
into a perspective and see
what it sees.
—
Table 3. Mixing DSRP Patterns to form new structures that require new Information (i.e.,
structural predictions).
You can also mix and match at the element level which is slightly more advanced but creates a
plethora of structural predictions that can cause the Leapfrog leader to better understand the system (Table
4).
D
S
R
P
Mixing
Identity
Other
Part
Whole
Action
Reaction
Point
View
D
Identity
—
other
becomes
identity
part
becomes
identity
whole
becomes
identity
action
becomes
identity
reaction
becomes
identity
point
becomes
identity
view
becomes
identity
Other
identity
becomes
other
—
part
becomes
other
whole
becomes
other
action
becomes
other
reaction
becomes
other
point
becomes
other
view
becomes
other
S
Part
identity
becomes
part
other
becomes
part
—
whole
becomes
part
action
becomes
part
reaction
becomes
part
point
becomes
part
view
becomes
part
Whole
identity
becomes
whole
other
becomes
whole
part
becomes
whole
—
action
becomes
whole
reaction
becomes
whole
point
becomes
whole
view
becomes
whole
R
Action
identity
becomes
action
other
becomes
action
part
becomes
action
whole
becomes
action
—
reaction
becomes
action
point
becomes
action
view
becomes
action
Reaction
identity
becomes
reaction
other
becomes
reaction
part
becomes
reaction
whole
becomes
reaction
action
becomes
reaction
—
point
becomes
reaction
view
becomes
reaction
9
P
Point
identity
becomes
point
other
becomes
point
part
becomes
point
whole
becomes
point
action
becomes
point
reaction
becomes
point
—
view
becomes
point
View
identity
becomes
view
other
becomes
view
part
becomes
view
whole
becomes
view
action
becomes
view
reaction
becomes
view
point
becomes
view
—
Table 4. Mixing at the Element level to create new structural predictions.
Even though the four structures of (DSRP) are quite simple, the brain is using D, S, R, and P
simultaneously and in many combinations to create patterns of thought. Systems thinkers are aware of this
- and as result, mix and match D,S,R, and P in many ways. Tables 3, 4, and 5 provide a few examples of
how these mixings occur.
Mix & Match
Example
Combine R and D: make a relationship a distinction,
which means defining relationships as ideas or things
rather than just noting connections between objects
(i.e., “R-things” [21]);
When thinking through two or more MEDEVAC
activities at the tactical level, partnerships at the
operational level, or structures, principles or functions
at the strategic level, identifying the relationships
between or among them can be critically important.
Combine R, D, and S: after distinguishing
relationships, “zoom into them” by deconstructing
them into part-whole systems (i.e., RDS [20], which
means relate two things, distinguish or identify the
relationship, and systematize or recognize its parts as
belonging to a system);
Building off of the above example, some of these
relationships can be quite complex and should therefore
be thought of as whole systems as well. These systems
can be made up of myriad elements including: actual
people, resources, or divisions or more conceptual
purposes, principles, or cultural norms.
Combine R and S (intra-system): see the organization
of parts and the interrelationships between parts (i.e.,
“part parties”) in a novel way;
Take any system of parts and look at the relationships
among them. This includes a team of people and their
team dynamics or a system consisting of groups of
people (divisions, battalions, companies, countries),
resources (helicopters, supplies, etc), and norms
(country or battalion specific norms) and the
interrelationships among them.
Combine R and S (inter-system): use relational
channels or “R-channels” to compare the relationship
between two wholes by comparing the relationships
between their parts;
Same as above but rather than internal to the system,
looking external to the system. How does the US
Special Forces system interact with the Italian, Polish,
and Spanish systems, and the Hub system? (i.e.,
part-parties [22]) How do the parts of one system
mimic or analog the parts of another system? (i.e.,
R-channels [23]).
Combine P and S: break down perspectives into
sub-perspectives in order to avoid the homogenous
perspective thinking error (i.e., assuming any group is
characterized by a single perspective);
Avoid assuming that “all Spanish soldiers” will
conclude the same thing. Or, that “all Special Forces
units see things the same way.” Question whether there
might be a system of Perspectives rather than a single
homogeneous perspective.
10
Combine P, S, and D: see that distinct objects or ideas
can be grouped/related in various ways according to a
perspective, and thereby avoid thinking errors brought
about by categorizing; and
Once you’re done mapping out your system, look at it
from different perspectives (either actor perspectives
like this or that group of soldiers or conceptual
perspectives like “safety,” “maintenance,” or
“cost/benefit”) and consider how the Ds, Ss, and Rs
might look very different from that perspective.
Combine P, S, R, and D [24]: realize every complex
topic or phenomenon is a massively relational,
perspectival network where: (A) every edge (line
indicating a relationship) could be a distinguished node
(the object connected by a relationship); and (B) where
every node must be distinguished, could be a system in
and of itself, could be a perspective (point or view),
and could be related to or the relationship between
other elements.
Build an “ecological model” of your entire system
where every node may be: (1) considered a salient
perspective that sees different aspects of the system in
different ways, (2) any two nodes may have a salient
relationship, (3) any node may be an unrecognized bias
(distinctions), and (4) every node may be a salient
subsystem with effective complexity to the whole it is a
part of.
Table 5. Mixing Examples.
Mixing includes the use of element-based and Pattern-based thinking. Where a set of Patterns or
elements or both are combined and recombined to create increasingly complex structures despite a simple
set and repeating algorithm.
Fractaling
Fractaling means seeing the fractal structures are repeating across SOT scale. Realizing that the
effective complexity of SOT scales is equal. The next step in understanding why “leapfrogging the SOT
skillset” is even possible is fractaling. That is, because work at S, O, and T scales is fractal in both its
DSRP structure and its effective complexity.
11
Figure 4: Representation of Effective Complexity.
Let’s agree that a visual representation of “effective complexity” is the interconnected system of 5
items (the “pentagram system”) in Figure 4. In other words, when you see the pentagram network, you
think “that’s a bunch of stuff that’s interconnected, likely has a bunch of perspectives and subparts, etc.”
or in short, “it’s complex.”
Figure 5 then explains that regardless of whether you’re at the S, O, or T level of scale, all of
these systems are equivalent in their effective complexity.
Figure 5: Representation of Effective Complexity Being Equivalent Across S, O, T, Scales.
For example, the number of things one needs to think of strategically OR the number of things
one needs to account for in designing a brochure (if done right) OR the number of things one needs to
think of to run a company or the number of things one needs to think of in order to implement a forward
12
operating base are not meaningfully different in their complexity. It is roughly the same number of things
and those things have relationships, perspectives, and subsystems. If that statement sounds false to you,
consider the item in that list that would likely be considered the least complex (designing a brochure) and
reflect on the amount of work and expertise that goes into designing, choosing, and using fonts alone. Still
don’t agree? Interview a world class designer, a Michelin-star chef, or a four-star general, about their
thinking process and you will see that the effective complexity they consider is equivalent.
What do we mean by effective complexity (EF)? Defining complexity quantitatively is difficult
and there are many differing candidates used as models for doing so based on the purpose. However,
generally speaking we can say that “effective complexity” or EF is the concise description of the
regularities of a set. What we mean by this is that if you have a set of things that make up some slice of
reality and you are able to offer a concise description for that set, this is called Algorithmic Information
Content (AIC)—which while useful for many things is not a good measure of effective complexity. But, if
we are able to develop a concise description of the regularities (the patterns) of the elements in the set,
that is effective complexity. And, for all intents and purposes, even if not quantitatively, that’s what a
leader is doing when they say, “I think the market is going to move in this direction so we should choose
strategy Z over Q.” That leader is building a mental model (hopefully taking into account data from the
real world) and based on patterns in the data they think they’re seeing, they are thinking from a strategic
lens (or an operational or tactical one) to determine the course of action that best addresses that mental
model. The mental model is the concise description of the regularities. Now, identifying a concise mental
model of the regularities of a system will be more or less difficult for the leader depending on the type of
system they are dealing with. For example, in Figure 6, we see 5 different types of systems generalized:
simple systems and random (stochastic) systems are relatively easy to identify concise descriptions for;
complicated system are relatively easy to see the regularities in but hard to capture in a concise way;
chaotic systems are difficult to describe concisely and can be difficult to identify regularities in (as they
are on the edge of randomness; but complex systems, if understood deeply, reveal relatively simple and
concise descriptions. Many of the systems that leaders are most baffled by are complex systems.
13
Figure 6: Effective complexity and 5 types of systems.
Why is a recognition that effective complexity is equivalent across SOT an important
metacognitive realization and skill? The answer is simple. It is because we generally don’t think that this
is the case. We are biased toward the unfounded belief that the “big picture” is more complex than the
details, even as we lament that “the devil is in the details.” Our disposition is that leaders and strategists
are dealing with big, heady complex issues and those of us “grunts” in the trenches are not. The truth is
that the successful grunts in the trenches are taking in and calculating and navigating just as much
complexity. The unsuccessful ones are not. But this same principle applies across all S, O, T levels. The
distinction to be made isn’t between “Strategy, Ops, and Tac folks;” the distinction that matters is between
“successful Strategy, Ops, and Tac folks” and “unsuccessful Strategy, Ops, and Tac folks.” Once this
distinction is made, we can help leapfrog leaders to make the next behavior-changing realization: if what I
am doing at the Tactical level is structurally no different in its process NOR in its complexity than what is
done at the Operational or Strategic levels, then I already have those skills! Those skills are therefore
transferable!
The educational research on transfer (learning something in one domain and transferring it to
another) is well-trodden. This would not be the first time that merely the metacognitive awareness of
transferability would increase transfer.
14
Through-Lining
Remember that through-lining simply means seeing the line that connects the storyline across
SOT scales (e.g, asking: how does x connect to or play out at lower/higher scales? Movie directors and
fiction writers are used to talking about the “through-line” as an important variable of a good script. It’s
something of an intangible thing that one knows quite easily if it exists or if it doesn’t. Google defines it
as “a connecting theme, plot, or characteristic in a film, television series, book, etc. as in "despite the
differences between the two seasons, there are still through lines."
So, despite the differences between the Strategic, Operational, and Tactical levels of scale, there
are—or rather should be—throughlines. As a leapfrog leader one must remember this and train their
people to remember this. It takes only a second to ask yourself as you’re about to do a task how it is
connected to the bigger picture. The more one does this simple cognitive act, the more one is capable of
doing it effectively. Each time your mind quickly traverses from sea-level to 100,000 feet and
back—passing through the S, O, and T levels—it burns the neurons of seeing the forest and the trees
together as one. What starts out slowly and clumsily quickly becomes a neurological and cognitive ability
that is done fluidly, readily, and easily. Throughlining (See Figure 7) also provides a critical check that
there is alignment between the S, O, and T levels, something every Leapfrog Leader should be constantly
monitoring.
Figure 7: Throughlining Across SOT.
In addition, Throughlining can be used to understand complex adaptive systems in what the
Cabreras call “CAS Analysis.” CAS involves agent actions at one level multiplying into effects (usually
emergent ones) at another level. Think about complex adaptive systems (CAS) and look for the rules
followed by independent agents that collectively lead to large-scale emergent phenomena; and struggle
through the intricacy of complex mental models to identify leverage points or to organize them in a new
way that causes the models to be simpler and easier to comprehend. CAS Analysis is a particular type of
analysis that uses “throughlining” in order to connect the emergent properties of a system with the simple
rules followed by agents. Identifying a throughline between the simple rules and the emergent strategic
outcome, especially when dealing with complex and adaptive systems like the ones we describe in the
cases below, may be the only way to connect what happens at the big picture and what happens at the
little picture because in CASs, the “micro begets the macro.” A recent and poignant example of this can
be understood by looking at the COVID-19 crisis. The micro behaviors of millions of individuals (e.g.,
15
mask or not, quarantine or not, 6 feet distancing or not, handwashing or not, etc. lead to the macro and
emergent statistical patterns (i.e., contagion, spread, death, etc)).
Elevationing
Remember from above that “Elevationing” means realizing that SOT scale differences are caused
by the perspectival transformations of "elevation" (e.g., 100k, 50k, 1k). In other words the leapfrog leader
needs to be aware (metacognitive) that what is being seen, highlighted, made salient, etc. is simply a
function of the elevation. Imagine for example, slowly rising up from the ground in a hot air balloon. As
you are leaving the Earth’s surface, you’re paying attention to trees, telephone poles and electrical wires.
Soon, you might keep an eye out for small aircraft or storm clouds looming on the horizon. Continue on
and the air is getting thinner and the concern is for oxygen saturation. Your concerns change because your
elevation is changing. But your view is also changing. When you are higher up you don’t see more—you
see the same amount. But you do see different things. You see a wider expanse of ground. But also,
certain details begin to fade from your view while others emerge. You might see patterns of traffic that are
more difficult to see lower down. But, you may also no longer see the patterns that connect one backyard
to another. A Leapfrog leader (and systems thinker) wants to ensure that they are constantly grounding
(connecting their mental model to reality and getting feedback). They want to ensure that the mental
models they are building (the patterns they are seeing and acting upon) are verified by reality at every
level of scale. Taking a military example, we may be hearing things from locals that contradict what we
are seeing at the largest scales. In business, we may be hearing things from customers that contradict the
statistical patterns we are seeing in the data.
“Elevationing” doesn’t mean that S outranks O and O outranks T, like the ranks of the officers
who manage those realms. It means that the mental models that are being created and the data being
generated at all SOT levels is being pooled and compared and contrasted to look for discrepancies and
validations. It means that the room where S is occurring there should be some O-types and some T-types
and vice versa. Leadership-by-walking-around is equal parts elevationing and grounding.
As a leapfrog leader, when you’re in the Tactical Mode, put on a Strategic Hat. Swap “Hats in
Modes.” That is, put on a Strategic Hat as a perspective on what you’re seeing Tactically or Operationally,
and vice versa. Put on a Tactical Hat when you're in Strategy Mode. That’s “elevationing.” The things you
see as you do this Mode/Hat swapping will all take various DSRP and VMCL forms, but remembering to
do it is the skill of elevationing.
Functional Naming
Functional naming refers to the act of naming things at the S-level for their POSIWID purpose
(functions) so that at the O and T levels a task is contextualized by its purpose.
POSIWID is a systems term developed by Stafford Beer [25] that is an acronym for the “purpose
of a system is what it does.” The idea behind POSIWID can be viewed two ways. Either all systems have
a POSIWID purpose (meaning that whatever the system is doing or does is its purpose) or the definition
of a system need not include purpose. Either way, purpose is somewhat unnecessary or ill defined as an
16
objective reality that can be known other than retrospectively. In other words, who is defining the
purpose?
Thus, utilizing VMCL we establish the envisioned purpose of the larger system using the Vision
(V) and the Mission (M) tells us the elements we must do repeatedly to bring about that Vision. This
means that the Mission is a concise description of the regularities of the system that must be repeated to
lead to the system-level properties. The Capacital system of systems are things we need in place in order
to do the Mission and Learning systems are the things we need in place to continuously improve our
Capacity to do Mission. Functional naming comes into play when we think about these Mission Capacity,
and Learning systems and what they need in place to accomplish them. For example, we’ll use our own
Lab’s Mission-Vision to “Engage, Educate, and Empower 7 Billion Thinkers.” In order to do this Mission
we need a few systems in place. We could choose the traditional systems like Sales, Marketing, Human
Resources, Engineering, etc. But instead we use functional naming to accomplish two things: (1) establish
a mini-POSIWID for the system and (2) to create something of a constant reminder or throughline for any
of the operations that occur within that system. This constant reminder contextualizes specific tasks in
order to ensure a throughline. Our functionally named systems communicate the intended POSIWID such
that we can always assess whether the system is matching up to what it was intended to do:
●GenRev: a system that generates revenue;
●PartnerRev: a system that generates revenue for and with partners;
●SysCap: a system that develops capacital systems that other systems need to operate;
●BuildTribe: a system that builds a committed tribe of supporters;
●SeeFeedback: a system that ensures we get timely feedback;
●GetPeople: a system that attracts, recruits, onboards, and keeps the very best people;
●Innovate!: a system that innovates new things; and
●MissionMoments: a system that ensures that mission moments (any moment where a customer
touches up against the organization) are sacrosanct.
Grounding
Grounding means utilizing an approximating and incremental approach (ST Loop) and getting
constant real-world “on the ground” feedback that causes mental model adaptation. The ST Loop (Figure
8)is the most basal mental model of systems thinking. It is simple but sublime. Many people
underestimate it because it is so simple, yet few people or organizations truly live up to what this simple
model illustrates is critically important.
17
Figure 8: ST Loop [11].
The important takeaways from this simple model are:
1. To recognize that everything we believe, think, assume, or conclude is a mental model; to see that
mental models are ever-present;
2. That these mental models are not the same as the real world reality. The map is not the territory.
Our mental models are approximations of reality that we must test against reality in order to
assess how good of an approximation they are;
3. When we test our mental models against reality, we must pay attention to the all-important
feedback we receive that comes in the form of information and can improve our mental models;
and
4. We take this information and structure it using thinking (DSRP) to form new mental models and
the process incrementally and cyclically begins again.
We consistently hear that this model is too simple to be of profound importance. Yet, despite the
fact that this model has been around for between 70 and 1,400 years3, it is curious that so few people or
organizations are able to follow it. Take for example the standard development paradigm where an
organization (say a technology company) hires the best folks it can find, gives them a big budget to build
a new product. The team disappears into a special facility and reappears 12 months later with a product
that is provided to consumers. Consumers quickly dismiss it as not useful. This could have been learned
on a much quicker timescale within a month of starting with a minimum viable product (MVP). You
might say, that’s basically design thinking, we already do that. You’d be right! Design thinking is
currently immensely popular since it appeared on the scene a decade ago. Yet, the basic algorithm for
design thinking (incremental realism) is no different from the ST Loop, which has been around for 1,400
years! Clearly, we could learn a lot from implementing this too-simple model.
3This history depends on who is credited with the idea: Lao Tzu (500AD), Thales (624/623AD), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642),
René Descartes (1629–1649), Norbert Wiener (1894–1964), Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901–1972) [10].
18
Case Example 1: Military Strategy, Operations, and
Tactics Are Not Independent Actors
It is well established that for organizations to thrive, they must have individuals who can
communicate a vision and then develop clear pathways to implement methods to accomplish tactical
tasks. Organizations will succeed or fail based on their ability to operationalize a strategic vision that
meets the expectation that increases value.
Many have believed that all this requires is a big thinker and a lot of doers. Although in previous
decades, that way of operating has been more than sufficient to meet productivity levels, ensure happy
investors, and the C-suite is achieving its bonus marks. In the new standard, this is a woefully inefficient
way to operate. Organizations at all levels are Complex Adaptive Systems or CAS. With the introduction
of technological advancements, each level requires some measure of strategy and tactics. The ability to
operationalize is the glue that juxtaposes strategy to tactical objectives for the leader, manager, or doers'.
The ability to operationalize is the secret sauce. Most visionary thinkers are not remarkable doers. Most
doers are very detail oriented and are not abstract thinkers. There is a huge need across organizations,
industry-agnostic, for systems thinkers who can leverage the DSRP framework to operationalize a vision
to implement the tactical task. Some may believe that strategy, operations, and tactics are mutually
exclusive events. They are not. For organizations to thrive in the new normal, and leverage an innovative
hybrid operating model, it will be imperative to understand that each level requires a SOT approach.
Let’s take a real-world scenario as a case example. In this example we will see a military leader
(Hise Gibson), utilizing the Strategic, Operational, and Tactical Model (SOT) to navigate the Reception,
Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration (RSOI) process utilized by the Army whenever there is an
organizational transition from one place to another. In this case we will illustrate the places where
SOT’ing skills are in play.
In July 2009, Hise was teaching Mathematics at the United States Military Academy and was
called to transition back into the force as a Battalion4Operations Officer for a unit in the midst of a
Mission Readiness Exercise for its upcoming deployment to Iraq. During this exercise, the organization
was removed from Iraq and “remissioned” to Afghanistan. This was because the operational environment
was changing, and the requirement to support U.S. forces in western Afghanistan had increased. Although
the Western portion of the country was controlled by coalition forces from Italy, Spain, and Poland,, there
were over 2,000 U.S. Army and Special Forces Marines as well. The sheer number of soldiers in the
combat zone created a reciprocal (and severe) need for Medical Evacuation assets (such as HH60 Medical
Evacuation Helicopters, Trauma trained Paramedics, medical equipment to sustain life while in transit),
called in the military “MEDEVAC.”
4“A U.S. Army battalion includes a battalion commander (lieutenant colonel), executive officer (major), command sergeant major
(CSM), headquarters staff, and usually three to five companies, with a total of 300 to 1,000 (but typically 500 to 600) soldiers
[26]“.
19
Along with this need for a MEDEVAC came a unique challenge: a MEDEVAC company5is not
equipped for sustained, entirely independent operations. Army Aviation, similar to commercial
transportation and distribution networks, are built in a hub and spoke configuration. A MEDEVAC
organization is ill-equipped to function at an optimal level without a base battalion headquarters or a hub
for all enterprise activities, such as aviation, maintenance, and flow of various personnel (e.g., medics,
pilots, etc.). This created a new requirement for a battalion headquarters. I was tasked to be the
advance-party to set up this headquarters for the soon-to-arrive 750-Soldier and 50-helicopter
organization.
Hise had to quickly deploy to Kandahar from his home-base Germany, and then to a former
Soviet Base that had not been occupied since 1989. There he began to see a few of the things that were
needed. He needed to:
1. Figure out how large quantities of equipment and personnel would flow into the country from
Germany and then from Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan to Shindand in western Afghanistan
near Herat;
2. Engage with the existing U.S. forces in the region (partnering with the U.S. Air Force, Navy,
Army, National Guard, and Reservists who were tasked with building a new airbase that we
would occupy);
3. Simultaneously, to develop relationships with the coalition forces; and
4. Perform a daily assessment of capacity for my team to coordinate all of these partnerships.
More generally, Hise had to:
1. Determine strategic goals;
2. Operationalize those goals; all while
3. At the tactical level implement a critical “node” that would function as a hub to manage the flow
of equipment and personnel.
This was made even more challenging due to his parent organization in Kandahar actively
engaging in warfighting throughout their area. This was the very definition of “asymmetric
warfare”—warfare in which the disparity is so extreme that traditional warfare cannot be waged. Instead,
the weaker force tends to rely on guerilla tactics, meant to weaken the larger force's resolve to continue
fighting over time.
Also, each element of our ecosystem had its own strategic,operational, and tactical level. For
example, developing relationships with the coalition leaders had strategic implications for helicopter
operations in the region (e.g., how so?). Hise had to create a meaningful relationship with the Spanish
regional construction team so that later he could negotiate the placement of soldiers inside their footprint
to conduct forward arming and refueling points. Without this Forward Arming and Refueling Point in
their location, they would be unable to reach their units 50-miles north of their position due to the limited
range of the helicopters. At the same time, the relationship developed with the Italian Senior Leadership
5A Medical Air Evacuation “Company” or MEDEVAC is an organization comprised of 15 HH60 Blackhawk Helicopters and 80
Soldiers(pilots, medics, mechanics, & administrators); [ATP 4-02.2 Medical Evaluation].
20
would in turn provide critically important protection of soldiers during the movement of construction
material and personnel needed to build the base, which was in turn required to ease the burden of soldiers
in Kandahar.
Because they had MEDEVAC services, the Italians knew that if they had injured soldiers, Hise’s
Unit could evacuate them to the next line of critical care and help keep their soldiers alive. At the
operational level, he had to think strategically about how and where he placed their deployed
headquarters, which would become the central hub for the operation in the region. This, too, required
some sensitive negotiations as there was an Air Force special forces element in the area who had squatted
in the most desirable place for a centralized headquarters.
If they could establish this hub, then they could quickly establish the spokes of the central hub
and begin to operate. This is an example of why it is necessary to not only be able to think strategically,
but also to understand how to operationalize within ambiguity, and think tactically about how it all might
be implemented and make an overall impact. Suffice to say, it was a complex set of moving parts under a
strict deadline.
The new standard will require organizations to be comprised of individuals who are equipped to
lead through the friction created in this Vulnerable, Uncertain, Ambiguous, and Complex (VUCA)
environment. Strategic leaders will need to be strategic integrators, which means using DSRP, VMCL,
and the various SOT’ing skills listed below.
1. Making distinctions large and small: Afghanistan is not Iraq. Identifying groups and actors in the
area.
2. Constructing related systems of systems of salient elements including large macro systems and
breaking them down into smaller subsystems. Deconstructing the complex problem into
systematic smaller parts.
3. Recognizing the relationships near and peripheral, and
4. Ensuring we take multiple perspectives and remaining open to other perspectives, especially those
that might be different from our own.
5. Understanding that organizationally, no matter what organizational model or framework we are
using, there are four functions that must be considered: Vision (goal state), Mission (repeatable
actions), Capacity (energy/ability to do Mission), and Learning (ability to receive and utilize
feedback)
6. Alternatively Lowlighting (content) and Highlighting (structure) in order to see underlying
patterns and structures at play;
7. Mixing (structures) in order to make structural predictions and “see more” than what is obvious;
8. Fractaling (structure) in order to see that the effective complexity at every level is roughly the
same;
9. Throughlining,Functional Naming, and Elevationing (from SOT perspectives) in order to
connect the specific tactical activities through operational activities to strategic objectives; and
10. Constantly grounding in order to ensure that our mental models are constantly updated and
grounded in real-world feedback.
21
Case Example 2: Business Strategy, Operations, and
Tactics are Not Independent Actors
SOT in Four Maps: Let’s switch gears from a military case to a midsize business case. In order to
ground the case in something practical and tangible, we’ll review how the actual SOT’ing process (much
of which occurs cognitively and socially) looks like in a team management software. For example, on the
left side of the software (See Figure 9), each employee would see three main sections in their “favorites''
area. These three sections correspond to the three SOT levels:
1. The 100k foot VMCL Strategic Picture
2. The 50k foot Operational Picture,
3. The 1k foot Weekly Tactical Sprint, and
4. The Ground Level Individual List of To Do’s
All workers or members of the team are guided to these SOT maps as core to their daily, weekly,
quarterly, and annual practice.
Figure 9: Illustration of a software system being used in a way to put 3 maps (S, O, and T) front and
center for all employees in their sidebar (map shows S level).
Strategic 100k VMCL Big Picture
The first map in Figure 10 shows the organization’s “VMCL.” It’s Vision, Mission, Capacity, and
Learning. But the map also shows how these universal functions of the organization are interrelated and
22
dependent on each other. Learning systems drive the Capacital Systems. Capacity Systems drive the three
element Mission that the organization must do everyday repeatedly, in order to bring about the Vision
(which in this case has three phases).
Figure 10: Strategic VMCL Map showing Learning (L) systems improving Capacity (C) systems that
make it possible to do Mission (M) and bring about Vision (V).
Note the functional naming of the Capacital and Learning Systems. Each of these systems forms
buckets that are full of backlog tasks that are populated as they arise. A few of the Capacital Systems are
colored to show how these colors drill-down or drill-up across the SOT scale to form throughlining.
VMCL planning requires:
●Utilizing the VMCL model and litmus checks to distinguish an effective Vision and Mission;
●Distinguishing using functional naming of systems in Capacity and Learning;
●Developing alignment (coupling relationships) between Learning systems, Capacity systems,
Mission, and Vision in order to see these functions as a whole ecological system and to see
Capacital systems as a nested “system of systems;”
●Drilling down to operational and tactical (or up) using throughlining to see the relationships that
cut across scale; and
●Utilizing various perspectives (including S, O, and T as perspectives, but also market forces,
customers, teams, departments, etc) to not only build out the Strategic Awareness but also to
evolve it and look at it in different ways.
23
50k Operational Big Picture
The Operational Picture is the second map in the sidebar (See Figure 11). It descends from
100,000 foot level to the 50,000 foot level (metaphorically) and looks at some relevant period (in this case
quarterly) and maps the operational plan and the various dependencies. Each employee can see the
various operational distinctions of importance. The way they are grouped (colors), related, and can view
this operational plan from multiple selected perspectives (cost, time, team, individual, purpose, etc).
Here again, you can see the colors that relate to the functional naming of Capacity Systems so
that we begin to see the throughlining right off the bat and can zoom in to look at finer grain
throughlining. Operational thinking requires:
●Distinguishing what needs prioritizing using perspectives as organizing frames and stopping
rules;
●Nesting a quarterly (or other timescale) ecology into an annual (or other timescale) ecology— i.e.,
nesting systems in systems;
●Identifying key relationships in time to establish predecessors, etc;
●Drilling down to tactical (or up to Strategic) using throughlining to see the relationships that cut
across scale; and
●Utilizing various perspectives (including S, O, and T as perspectives, but also competitors,
partners, customers, teams, etc) to not only build out the operational plan but also to evolve it and
look at it in different ways.
Figure 11: Operational Map showing [quarterly] operations plan with dependencies and colored linkages
to nested Strategic Level structures.
24
1k Weekly Tactical Sprint
At the tactical level is the weekly team sprint (See Figure 12). Where tasks are brought over from
backlogs of functionally named Capacital systems. Following an agile sprint or kanban style board, teams
decide what comes out of the Capacital Systems, Learning, and Mission in order to decide what’s on the
Sprint for that week. Sprint Planning is based on:
●Distinguishing stories or tasks in the sprint so everyone is on the same page;
●Nesting tasks with subtasks and grouping in columnar formats and systems;
●Relating tasks using predecessor or other types of relationships in order to see the sprint as an
interconnected ecology of stories; and
●Taking multiple perspectives such as individual team members, the user or customer, the market
and using Strategic and Operational perspectives on tactical level by throughlining and functional
naming and grouping.
Figure 12: The 1k foot level Tactical [weekly] sprint/kanban board with colored linkages to nested
Operational and Strategic Level structures.
Each user story or task in the sprint is marked with the color of the functionally named Capacital
(or other) system so that every near-ground-level story and the various ground-level tasks associated with
it can be throughlined back to 100,000 feet (See Figure 13).
25
Figure 13: An individual-level task or Sprint-level story can be “throughlined” to the Strategic-level
using nested coloring.
Note a few things about this SOT scaling system. First, at all three levels of scale the effective
complexity is roughly equivalent. It’s not as if the Strategic level is dealing with more variables. At each
level there is equivalence in effective complexity. Second, we pointed out the throughlining occurring
throughout using colors and functional naming. Elevationing plays itself out constantly as we use DSRP
(especially the P) to see things from a strategic, operational, and tactical lens. Finally, lowlighting content,
highlighting structure and mixing and matching the DSRP structures in order to see new possibilities,
question one’s bias, and organize raw information into meaningful mental models is occurring at every
level.
Sea Level
Today in the VUCA world we live in, business leaders are looking for ways to empower their
workers at the same time that they structure their work. We want our organizations and our people to be
hyper-focused and directed toward our goals at the same time we want them to be fluid and adaptive to
real-world constraints and barriers on the ground. As is often said, hiring the best people and then
micromanaging them is not ideal. Aligning SOT (utilizing DSRP and VMCL to understand and build the
SOT leapfrogging skills) in the way we’ve described in the case above, allows workers to see the tactical,
operational and strategic goals but also to manage their own daily and weekly to do lists in service of
those SOT parameters (See Figure 14).
26
Figure 14: Sea-Level Individual Adaptive To Do List showing user-created tasks linked (colors) to nested
Tactical, Operational, and Strategic levels.
Conclusion
Developing a deep understanding of DSRP and VMCL and utilizing this understanding to
understand and build the skills of Lowlighting (content), Highlighting (structure), Mixing (structures),
Fractaling (structure), Throughlining, Elevationing (from SOT perspectives), Grounding, and Functional
Naming can allow leaders to Leapfrog the SOT learning curve. Learning and practicing these skills isn’t
“free.” This skill development takes time. But the time-to-task to learn these skills explicitly will have a
significant ROI as compared to relying on the “hope” that such skills will develop from real-world
expertise. By making these skills explicit, metacognitive, and purposefully pursued, the net-time to
SOT’ing can be substantially decreased.
References
1. CMCFA Bundle. What is Strategy? Infantry Journal. 1929;34.
2. Martin R. SOT: The Strategy-Operations-Tactics framework. Canadian Defense Review. 2014;20.
3. Maxwell AFB. Three Levels of War. United States Airforce (USAF) College of Aerospace Doctrine.
Research and Education (CADRE) Air and Space Power Mentoring Guide. 1997;1.
4. US Air Force. Levels of war in U.S. Air Force Doctrine Volume 1 - Basic Doctrine. United States
Air Force; 2015.
27
5. Stiehm JH. U.S. Army War College: Military Education In A Democracy. Temple University Press;
2010.
6. Cabrera D, Cabrera L, Cabrera E. A Literature Review of the Universal Patterns and Atomic
Elements of Complex Cognition. In: Cabrera D, Cabrera L, Midgley G, editors. Routledge
Handbook of Systems Thinking. Routledge; 2021.
7. Cabrera D, Cabrera L. What Is Systems Thinking? Learning, Design, and Technology. Springer;
2019.
8. Cabrera D, Cabrera L, Lobdell C. Systems Thinking. Journal of Evaluation and Program Planning.
2008;31: 299–310.
9. Cabrera D, Colosi L. Distinctions, Systems, Relationships, and Perspectives (DSRP): A Theory of
Thinking and of Things. Eval Program Plann. 2008;31: 311–317.
10. Cabrera D. Systems Thinking. PhD, Cornell University. 2006.
11. Cabrera D, Cabrera L. Systems Thinking Made Simple: New Hope for Solving Wicked Problems in
a Complex World. Ithaca: Odyssean Press; 2015.
12. Cabrera D. Distinctions, Systems, Relationships, Perspectives: The simple rules of complex
conceptual systems. 52nd Annual Conference of the International Society for the Systems
ScInternational Society for the Systems Sciences - 52nd Annual Conference of the International
Society for the Systems Sciences 2008. 2008.
13. Cabrera D, Cabrera L. Flock Not Clock: Design, Align, and Lead to Achieve Your Vision. Plectica
Publications; 2018.
14. Cabrera D, Cabrera L, Powers E, Solin J, Kushner J. Applying systems thinking models of
organizational design and change in community operational research. European journal of
operational research. 2018;268: 932–945.
15. Cabrera D, Cabrera L. Complexity and Systems Thinking Applications in Education. In: Spector M,
Locke B, Childress M, editors. Learning, Design, and Technology: An International Compendium of
Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Springer; 2019.
16. Euler L. Origin of Network Theory. 1735.
17. Naumowicz A. A Note on the Seven Bridges of Königsberg Problem. Formalized Mathematics.
2014;22: 177–178.
18. Cabrera D, Cabrera L. Structural Predictions Part One. Systems Thinking Daily. 2020;20: 4.
19. Cabrera D, Cabrera L. Structural Predictions Part Two. Systems Thinking Daily. 2020;20: 4.
20. Cabrera, D. Synapses, Hinges, Embassies, and Supply Chains: The Power Of RDS Structural
Predictions. Systems Thinking Daily. 2020;20: 4.
21. Cabrera D, Cabrera L. Jig: Barbell. Systems Thinking Daily. 2020;20.
22. Cabrera, E. Jig: Part Parties. Systems Thinking Daily. 2020;20.
28
23. Cabrera D, Cabrera L. Jig: R-Channel. Systems Thinking Daily. 2020;20.
24. Cabrera, E. Jig: Perspective Ecology. Systems Thinking Daily. 2020;20.
25. Beer S. What is cybernetics? Kybernetes. 2002;31: 209–219.
26. Wikipedia contributors. Battalion. In: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 7 Feb 2021.
29
