Leaders need to see the future but hold on loosely to their expectations

I frequently work with leaders that have good long-distance “radar”—by this, I mean that they have a knack for anticipating future events and at positioning themselves and their organizations to meet challenges or make the most of opportunities before they arise. That’s a precious skill for a leader. In fact, I’d go so far as to say the ability to anticipate the future is a hallmark of the best-of-the-best, most successful leaders I encounter. Ironically, it’s a distinguishing characteristic of some of the least successful ones as well. This is because it’s not so much the ability to anticipate the future that distinguishes great leaders as much as it is how they regard this knowledge as they move forward.

The most successful leaders have concrete and detailed ideas of what is going to happen next, but they hold on to their predictions loosely. They maintain a sort of fragile confidence that what they believe will happen actually will. They are not ambivalent or confused. In fact, they trust their ability to see the future enough to let their predictions guide big actions and decisions in the present. (This is how they always seem prepared for challenges and poised for opportunities when they arise.) But despite their confidence in their predictions and their assertiveness in pursuing them, they are also vigilant for things to change along the way. They know that life is a fluid proposition and that even their best guess at the future is a fleeting and fickle thing, subject to change by the next action and inaction, so they keep their distant radar running even as they put present things in motion. They simultaneously step toward the future they expect, and watch for it to change.

Less successful leaders often have the same ability to anticipate the future, but they put too much confidence in their predictions and limit what is possible. For instance, it’s a gift to be able to anticipate how a person will respond to your proposal before you make it; this enables you to design your pitch more strategically. However, it is easy for our mental posture to slip from appreciating the real possibility of a particular response to assuming that it is a given. When this happens, our picture of the future isn’t informing us as much as constraining us, and our “radar” isn’t broadening our strategic opportunity as much as artificially limiting it.

These leaders are attentive to the future but they hold on too tightly to their initial ideas and don’t allow their “pictures of the possible” to change as they are moving toward them. Once they’ve determined what is likely to happen, they metaphorically switch off their radar and charge down the most promising path. They don’t notice when new factors, other forces, or even their own actions alter the trajectory, and they wind up deeply invested in a future that never arrives. They are savvy and opportunistic enough at the start, but they fail to keep checking and adjusting their picture of the future as they move toward it. So they complete their preparations and positioning as planned, only to discover that the opportunity they anticipated never materialized or has already passed them by. Either way, they end up missing what they most hoped for.

Ironically, at other times, this same tendency to hold on too tightly to their expectations also causes them to get what they least wanted. For leaders, there is a fine line between positioning for future events and causing them. Their perspective on the future is powerful, and their actions and inactions have an insidious way of turning possibilities into reality for better or for worse. It’s a prudent strategy to gar up for difficulties or problems we see ahead and to position our organizations to meet or avoid them, but it is important to realize that no matter how much we trust our radar, the problems we anticipate haven’t actually occurred yet. When we act too assertively in the present to position ourselves for the bad things we anticipate in the future, we can end up raising the load and anxiety of our organizations unnecessarily, or worse, we can create a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy in which we are instrumental in creating the future we most wished to avoid. (This is deadly for an organization, not only because it routinely brings the worst futures to fruition, but because the vicious cycle it births reassures the leader that he or she is always right to anticipate them. In the worst cases these organizations become besieged—always working to stave off or protect themselves from a future they are secretly manufacturing themselves.)

Leave the What and How to those you Lead

Leaders who spend more time talking about “Why” maintain space for others to focus on “What” and “How”. On the other hand, leaders who spend too much time talking about What and How actually usurp the role of others and create a vicious cycle for themselves. Because they are frustrated by the scarcity and poor quality of tactical or operational thinking elsewhere in the organization, they take up the charge and do it themselves. Consequently, the other members of the organization increasingly cede this role to the leader and tend to do less of it themselves. This only confirms the leader’s initial assessment and the cycle continues to amplify. Eventually the leader is left trying to do all the thinking and wondering why the organization is full of slackers.

Roles are vitally important in organizational activity, but the way to develop another’s role is rarely to assume it yourself. Even the best-intentioned efforts at this tend to fix an immediate problem only by creating long-term vulnerabilities and system deficits. Instead, stick to your role and call others to play their’s more fully and effectively.

If you perceive a lack of quality or initiative in Tactical or Operational thinking, consider whether this is due to lack of activity from others or an excess of activity from the leader, then act accordingly.