In the closing sentence of their 2001 HBR article, Heifetz and Laurie write, вЂњOne can lead with no more than a question in hand.вЂќ Asking important questions that we do not have the answer to ends up being one of the most powerful ways that we can lead because it takes us out of the role of providing solutions and begins to engage the people that need to do the work if we are to make progress. With that in mind, Heifetz defines leadership as the activity of mobilizing people to make progress on adaptive challenges. Leading through adaptive challenges must include getting people fully engaged and involved and not avoiding the important work that needs to be done. Leadership is giving the work back to the people, moving them into a place of disequilibrium-out of the status quo-and putting them into the proverbial вЂњpressure cooker.вЂќ Exposing people to the risks, asking them tough questions, and putting the work on their shoulders. And yet, and this is where it gets really interesting, if we are facing an adaptive challenge, leadership is resisting the urge and the expectations to provide direction, protection, and order. Adaptive Leadership is Counter-IntuitiveДЄuthority figures in the situations I just described are expected to have answers, and they will feel tremendous pressure to provide direction, protection, and order. If you are operating in ambiguous, uncharted territory if a directive style of leadership is backfiring if making progress requires a shift in the mindsets of key stakeholders-you are likely dealing with an adaptive challenge. Forcing the unification may work on the surface initially, but real progress will usually require a different approach.Д¬hanges in strategy, restructuring, mergers, union negotiations, and regulatory shifts are more examples of situations that are fertile soil for adaptive challenges. The prescriptive boss who tries to mandate changes to peopleвЂ™s values and deeper underlying assumptions will likely fail.ДЄnother example is getting different departments (вЂњsilosвЂќ) who have competing interests to work as one unified team. The culture that has worked so well in the past needs to change if the company is to stay competitive. Picture, for example, a highly successful, but set-in-its-ways organization facing a disruptive technology. Thus, the essential first step is to know what kind of problem you are dealing with. But you get into real trouble if you apply technical solutions to adaptive challenges. When facing a technical challenge, it is appropriate for people in authority to provide clear guidance and the blueprint for action. Heifetz and colleagues differentiate an adaptive from a technical, or routine, challenge-which is a challenge we already have the know-how to address. Progress on adaptive challenges requires changes in peopleвЂ™s values, attitudes, or habits of behavior-a change in mindsets. There is no map or blueprint for action-and the solutions donвЂ™t reside in the formal leaders at HQ. Where that approach becomes problematic is when we find ourselves in uncharted territory-facing what Ron Heifetz and colleagues call an adaptive challenge.ДЄdaptive challenges are ambiguous, systemic problems with no easy answers. Those are good things, and not just for military leaders, right?

I began my military career at the US Army Infantry School where the motto is вЂњFollow me!вЂќ Living that motto involves leading by example and knowing where you are going.

What is stay alive challenge