Navigating Chaos: How to Find Certainty in Uncertain Situations

by Jeff Boss

goal without a plan is just a dream, feedback without personal reflection is merely criticism, and behavior without a purpose is a mistake.

No meeting agendas Nonexistent or poorly articulated roles, responsibilities, and expectations Poor communication between people, departments No alignment and therefore no accountability Different missions across different departments (the sales division has a different goal than the marketing department) Lack of trust between people and departments Leaders not leading—that is, leaders who are risk-averse, don’t understand their team’s capabilities, avoid accountability, or make egocentric decisions People serving themselves rather than serving others Little focus on personal development or leadership succession No purpose, and therefore little energy to work Unwillingness to adapt to change or new demands

Moreover, the lack of trust exists because there are no forums to share knowledge, strategize, or build trust.

Cross-pollination was a process we performed in the Teams to spread the wealth of knowledge and experience from one team to another. If you really think about it, individual competence is certainly important for any organization because it contributes to overall performance. But individual performance alone is inconsequential. Here’s why. Progress—within any team or company—is a function of relationships; the process of how individuals work together or successively toward a shared objective determines results.

While nobody really looked forward to changing teams after having invested so much time with the guys they had lived, trained, traveled, and fought with, cross-pollinating was an indispensable tool not just for personal improvement, but for enhancing our own competencies, as well. The intra-exchange led to greater shared learning across the community and bridged any communicative gaps that pervaded the command since each member had his own informal network of operators with whom he would confide and share information.

The repercussions of not cross-pollinating were similar to the issues I’ve seen in companies today: Haphazard decision-making based on limited information Lack of trust due to poor communication Redundant work efforts that cost the company time and money

Certain skills may be in-demand at one time, but what happens tomorrow or next year when the enemies, operating environments, and trends all change?

By staying in a single skill set your whole career, you become limited by what you know and handicapped by what you don’t. You lack the diversified know-how that others have of putting students through training to understand why trainees do stupid things, of grasping the systemic layout of curriculum design from beginning to end, for example. Hence, your focus and your contribution stay myopic at best. You operate in a silo.

Much to guys’ chagrin—including myself, at the time—it actually produced more-experienced operators. Team members could better understand how each organizational piece fit together and why, which allowed them to better understand the whole puzzle. This practice of professional diversity also helped shape the mindset of each member because they learned how to assimilate themselves into new situations, new environments, and develop the soft skills that were lacking from years of shooting bad guys in the face. Wearing a suit and tie in an embassy requires a very different skillset than throwing on fatigues and heading onto the battlefield.

Cross-pollination was effective, as members were soon deployed overseas outside their comfort zones. This increase in knowledge sharing and experience enabled us to influence key decision makers and communicate our purpose in a language that everyone understood, rather than what we—SEALs—had all previously relied upon: shooting a tight “group” or wearing cool-guy sunglasses (which we still do, by the way). Nobody believes what you can do until they understand the type of person you are. Despite the fact that nobody wanted to leave the team for a professional development tour, each member returned with greater awareness that only led to sustained superior performance.

Even worse, Matt wasn’t even aware that such a gap existed in the first place. Now, he must stay current with not only the tangible skills of his job function (the expectation) but also learn the intangibles such as presence, communication, and leadership associated with his newfound promotion.

DACA: Detect, Adapt, Choose, Adopt Here is a four-step process I call DACA for how to change your leadership style and adapt to the right situation: Step 1: Detect. The first step to any sort of change is to identify the imperative to change. In the military, before we set out to plan our next mission we first needed to understand the environment in which we operated. Specifically, we needed to discern between two types of unknowns. The first is known unknowns, such as our capabilities, enemy pattern of life, and likely or unlikely responses. The second type is unknown unknowns, and these are indicated by the weather, terrain, and—again—enemy behavior. The degree to which we could anticipate an enemy’s response dictated our approach, much like understanding the relationship dynamics, interests, and vested resources amongst stakeholders in a meeting.

Step 2: Adapt. The reason detection is so important is because it affords space to maneuver—not in the physical sense of trying to escape another seemingly wasteful meeting, but the mental space that allows you to adjust mid-course based on new information or perspectives—and this is where adaptability comes in.

To adapt in this sense is to have a flexible mindset; to be prepared to put aside the functional expertise and instead improvise based on the intent of the situation and the best fit for its purpose. Of course, a flexible mindset is easier said than done. We all know people who are anything but flexible in their ways.

Step 3: Choose. Choosing the right leadership style depends on a number of factors. Here are a few questions to consider before choosing the best leadership style to employ: What does “right” look like? Is my definition of winning the same as everybody else’s? What objective am I trying to achieve? What objective are we trying to achieve? Why the discrepancy? (if a...

Step 4: Adopt. Once you’ve detected the right leadership style to employ, adapted your mindset and behavior to that style, and effectively chosen to implement it into practice, it’s time to actually do it. Adopting a new leadership style into your repertoire allows you to call upon that style and its associated skills at any time and under any circumstance. The DACA approach can help you slow down your thought process and settle into the situation before diving in too deep. Take the time to let the situation unravel and then apply the right leadership style to the right situation. When an employee is raised in one particular light, he or she can’t help but see one way to solve problems because that’s all he or she knows. It can prove to be fatal, as the next vignette will show.

Lisa failed for multiple reasons, four of which are significant enough to discuss here. The first failure was already mentioned—complete disregard for security protocol. The second was her organizational upbringing. Through no fault of her own, Lisa was raised in a silo that created a biased viewpoint and consequently taught her to look one way at a problem. When she moved up in rank, a gap was created between what she knew previously and what was asked of her. In other words, what got Lisa her promotion was different from what would cause her to excel.

The third failure was ego. Arrogance can severely degrade one’s self-efficacy—the ability produce results; to perform—if improperly managed, as it prevents oneself from seeing the bigger picture—any picture—and therefore precludes learning from others. Overconfident and arrogant individuals see one thing as central to all decision-making: themselves. Lisa made the decision to forego a security search of the source because she feared insulting him and possibly losing her big opportunity to shine. She placed individual self-interest above that of the team, and her overinflated ego was only complemented by her fourth major failure, which was a lack of trust.

know plenty of knowledge hoarders who don’t say anything until the right people are in the room and then…wham! All of a sudden, they have diarrhea of the mouth and spit out facts, figures, theories, names, and everything else they know just to demonstrate how smart they are.

Competence is what you know. How you choose to apply it depends on your judgment, such as practical application, interpersonal connection, and improvement of cognitive or theoretical construct.

Nobody is born competent. In fact, my dad had a great quote on this subject. It was “everybody is born stupid.” One must learn how to become a skilled doctor, firefighter, or salesperson, and the only way such knowledge is learned is if a person is humble and open enough to learn. There must be an eager desire to answer one’s burning curiosity and a willingness to adopt it as “right.”

Unfortunately, not all commands within the SEAL community shared this practice for the simple fact that “it’s a numbers game.” Some Teams simply choose not to flush away their Team Guy turds and instead sweep them under the rug, and those leaders guilty of this practice are the cannibalistic beings who eat away at our community from the inside, contributing to the denigration of their own community simply because bureaucracy says so.

Additionally, help to foster the adaptability of your own organization by encouraging cross-pollination, and push yourself to broaden your understanding beyond the confines of your own silo. You—and your organization—will be stronger for it.

Attitude is a direct reflection of who you are. It reveals your disposition toward adversity, your openness to learning, how well you work with others, and how willing others are to work with you. I cannot think of a more simple recruiting process than hiring for attitude. If you are familiar with Ernest Shackleton’s historic journey in the early 1900s to cross Antarctica in hopes of reaching the South Pole, then you understand the value of having the right people. If this story is new to you, here is a brief summary of the grueling expedition.

Additionally, while Shackleton’s leadership was nothing short of remarkable during the hourly fight for survival, what was even more noteworthy was how he enticed volunteers to actually buy into his mission in the first place. In order to fulfill his undertaking, Shackleton needed to solicit people who believed what he believed—people with no appetite for glory, fortune, or fame, but rather those who embodied the higher order ideals of honor, respect, and achievement. Shackleton only sought people who truly wanted to explore because if extreme hardship were to surface—as it did—then anybody who was less-than-willing to endure would only become dead weight. In other words, he needed the right cultural fit. To do so, he posted a “help wanted” sign for volunteers that read:

Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, and safe return doubtful. Honor and recognition in case of success.

The selected applicants were chosen for: Shared beliefs and values Curiosity and enthusiasm Skill and will

When we (SEALs) enter a room for clearance, we trust that our buddy is going to cover our six o’clock when our backs are exposed. There is only so much space one person can “clear” at a time, and how fast your buddy can clear your backspace determines how fast the entire room is cleared. A team, company,

Because they trust themselves and have the self-confidence to tackle the unknown, facing ambiguity with conviction, these are the students who learn to embrace change.

Trust is essential to building enduring connections with employees, suppliers, customers, and the community. Nobody wants to work in an office where you don’t trust the person next to you, nor is it ideal to work for a boss who doesn’t extend opportunities to trust. Honesty and ethical behavior therefore create trust because the best way to spread an idea, value, or behavior is to live it. My first learning lesson of how to use trust as a tool for improvement came during the second phase of BUD/S and proved to be an exceptional method for surfacing individual character, as the next chapter will show.

The biggest obstacle to learning something is the belief that you already know it. —Zen saying

Discontent is the first step in progress. No one knows what is in him till he tries, and many would never try if they were not forced to. There is nothing quite like ignorance combined with a driving need to succeed to force rapid learning. —Ed Catmull, Creativity, Inc.

You’re in survival mode, the critical and sacred space where the inclination to find a solution is ever looming. It’s the breaking point, where whatever you’ve always done isn’t working for you anymore. You’ve brought down the risk of the known unknowns, but with the unknown unknowns erupting all around you, hunkering back down into what has always worked isn’t going to cut it anymore. And when you’re already in hell, searching for a way out that doesn’t involve going back the way you came, curiosity steps in. Curiosity: what drives us, guided by purpose, back into the gap where the unknown lies—where we can discover for ourselves how best to bridge it.

It’s only when the impetus for change is greater than the complacency not to that we become curious and begin to seek answers. However, when the status quo is acceptable, the push toward transformation declines. Curiosity dwindles. Comfort levels rise. The impetus to learn and grow subsides as one rationalizes what’s needed and what’s desired. See figure below. So, what is the secret to keeping the fire of curiosity burning? Purpose. Purpose is the key; it’s the fuel that keeps the fire of curiosity burning because it continually poses the question, “Why?” When you’re driven by a deep sense of purpose, you are able to meet new obstacles with conviction, adapting and overcoming to find a solution. It’s a willingness to run into the fray against a known discomfort and deal with uncertainty head-on that defines one’s true sense of curiosity—and purpose.

Self-awareness is what encourages your level of curiosity to fill the gap between certainty and uncertainty. If you’re unwilling to be uncomfortable, then you’re not willing to win; if you’re not willing to tackle change and ambiguity, then you’re not ready for new ideas to emerge. Until you’re humble enough to embrace the unknown for what it is, ideas, creativity, and innovation are limited—because you are. The most inspiring leaders embrace the unknown because they know they don’t have all the answ...

The greater your curiosity, the wider your angle of view and the more of the competitive environment you’re able to see. Take, for example, former Air Force Colonel John Boyd, widely known for the OODA loop process of decision-making that he adopted from his learning experience flying fighter planes. During the Cold War, dogfighting was the art of aerial battle—a practice less common today due to the technological advances over the years. What Boyd noticed as a pilot was this: while the soviet mig fighter was smaller, faster, and more agile than the overly cumbersome and slower American fighter plane, the mig typically lost in an aerial dogfight. Why? Because of the pilot’s limited vantage point. Boyd realized that the mig pilot’s narrow field of vision restricted him from anticipating the American fighter jet’s next move simply because he couldn’t see it. The US plane, conversely, had a much wider field of view, which enabled him to see more and, hence, beat the soviet fighter to the punch. Thus, Boyd discovered that the first person to successfully navigate the process of observation, orientation, decision, and action (OODA) would win. Every time.

What Boyd did was merge his previously-held knowledge and experience of flying with the why of the problem. In other words, Boyd stepped back from his street-level view of the problem and onto a balcony that overlooked the street—an alternative vantage point that enabled him to see more and, ultimately, build competence as a result. When you understand how a new territory is oriented, you can better sift through the complexity of the competition. You see patterns emerge. Previous models that worked in other situations may not work with the current problem, but a modification might. Even if past changes resulted in so-called failures, what really matters is how you and/or the organization learns and adapts from such mistakes; how well you turn near misses into current-day building blocks that generate future success. This is how you beat the “migs” in your industry and stay relevant—by noticing what works, what doesn’t, and treating “failures” not as exceptions, but rather launching platforms for innovation. The more thoroughly you understand your area of operations (AO) and how it’s structured, the more prepared you will be to react when new threats emerge, and seize strategic opportunities.

Southwest Airlines (SWA) is consistently considered one of the top five employers in the US by Fortune, Forbes, and Business Insider magazines, and one of the top companies in Jim Collins’ Great By Choice due to its sustained superior performance in a complex environment. By complex, I am referring to uncontrollable, unpredictable, and rapidly changing circumstances that cause you or your organization to change. The difference between complex and complicated is this: complicated is solvable, whereas complex is ever changing, continually morphing, and therefore unsolvable. Complexity perpetually raises the bar every time you try to meet it, forcing you to either adapt or become obsolete. The only “solution” in a complex environment is to adapt—to implement a short-term pivot upon which future effectiveness can be built. Here’s how Southwest did (and continues to do) it through the eyes of the OODA loop:

Other observations SWA made about

Learning and Change Change requires learning, and learning requires change. It is a reciprocal and inextricably linked relationship, as change—personal or organizational—necessitates the adoption of new processes, motives, rules, and relationships, while also letting go of their antecedents. Following the shoot, move, and communicate example introduced earlier in this book, you will recall that to move is to alter one’s position, mindset, or emotions—be it organizationally, personally, or professionally. Change often has a negative connotation because it implies something involuntary—a push toward the edge of the cliff—simply because of the unknown black hole in which change resides. People resist change and resist being changed. That’s no secret. But without change, there is no learning and no evolution—only complacency, and, ultimately, chaos.