”The first time, one learns and understands. The second time, he learns but thinks, I was fooling myself to think that I understood, for I understand nothing. The third time, he understands and doesn’t understand. The fourth time, he understands what he did not understand and doesn’t understand what he understood. And on and on in this fashion. And if he works very hard and goes back over the text so many times that he loses track, and if he has help from on high, he begins to understand. And this is the beginning of wisdom”. (A City In Its Fullness, S. Y. Agnon)
Starting a new role always entails elements of Not-Knowing that generate a certain sense of apprehension, nervousness, and tension for an incoming manager. Some uncertainty could stem from his/her lack of familiarity with certain aspects of the new role: the market in which the company operates, the company’s product line, the employees’ strengths and challenges, the organizational culture (official and implicit culture of values, norms, and agreements), the corporate politics and more. The result of this flood of emotions might at times spark a “know-all” attitude or lead to unsolicited advice and input on the part of the newcomer, in an attempt to make a good first impression, define and consolidate the role, and boost the new manager’s confidence regarding the added value he or she brings to the new management role. In reality, it is common knowledge that the manager is new; hence, everyone is aware that there are aspects about which s/he is uninformed, at least for the time being. However, the impetus to “prove myself” from the onset is psychological and personal and often might move one to take specific action (familiar from prior experience) where this particular action is not required or relevant to the new situation.
From my experience in consultancy and leadership, I’ve come to appreciate the power of “Not-Knowing”, and not just in the context of filling a new role, as any complex leadership situation may be considered new. (Beginner’s Mind, Zen approach to personal growth).
When I stepped into my new role as Chief Operating Officer, my lack of knowledge was plain to see. It was clear to me that in order to affect a positive movement toward change, I would have to put the elephant in the room on the table. “True, I am unfamiliar with this field (operations), and you will have to teach me. But these things (work processes, people, systems, and interfaces) I know well and perhaps they can serve you, too.”
The implied doubt – “perhaps they can serve you” – gives the employees an escape route of sorts and allows them not to make an immediate commitment to their manager’s every whim; instead, it leaves an implicit message that having doubts is legitimate. This course of action, as simple as it may seem, defines the boundaries of the partnership. Each stakeholder has a crucial contribution to make to the joint success and, together, we can give it a chance. Without words, the message being spun here is one of equal contribution and learning, and the possibility of change.
Moreover, I’ve aligned myself to a clear position where I know that I have value but, at the same time, I’m fully aware that I have more to learn. Channeling and managing these feelings helped me navigate the complexity of the situation.
On an energetic level, “Not-Knowing” gives the group a stronger collective energy. “Not-Knowing” is an invitation for inquiry, learning and genuine engagement. It is a sincere and authentic invitation extended to anyone who has a relevant idea or who wishes to solve a problem. This “admission”, voiced loudly and clearly, invites everyone to partake in leading, to bring forth their leadership skills; there’s room for their leadership because the “leader” is not all-knowing.
Furthermore, if the leader is not the “know all”, then the employees, too, don’t need to and cannot know all; therefore, he or she can admit to what they do not know and be open to learning.
Knowing is an illusional anchor. It is the nature of people and leadership. It is the foundation upon which we’ve constructed the organizational structure.
“Not-Knowing” constitutes a motivational force and an engine for change. The dialogic manager is knowledgeable in the interpersonal processes and has fundamental faith in people and in their good intentions and abilities. Therefore, a manager’s “knowing” is in the sphere of processes and in the energetic field – he or she knows that complex problems may be solved, that what demands change can indeed be changed, and collectively – that which seems impossible can be made possible. “Knowing” is related to the power of hope and the ability to change and does not necessarily have to derive from technical knowledge. In other words: “I believe in us. Let’s see what happens”.
What if I have technical knowledge and a sense of “knowing”? What then needs to be done?
When in a state of “knowing”, the most difficult challenges are letting go of control and embracing the sense (or the illusion) of control that knowledge grants us; putting these two aside for the alternative of “Not-Knowing” or disregarding this prior knowledge, is no small feat.
“Not-Knowing” has numerous advantages and can therefore be a beneficial mindset in instances in which we believe we are in a state of knowing. The risk of “knowing” is that we might tackle a given situation by replicating our past actions based on prior events or instances. Moreover, a sense of “knowing” undermines one’s ability to be attuned to nuances. It stifles patience and does little to encourage partnership. “Not-Knowing” is not a leadership ideology and, in fact, “knowing” can have tremendous organizational power. It is present here in this handbook as a state of mind and an engine of change and in no way does it nullify the need for out-and-out professionalism. I find that I have to repeatedly remind myself of the power of this principle, and each time anew I’m in awe of the results!
Why adopt an attitude of “Not-Knowing” when you feel you are “in the know”?
Case in point: a merger of two companies in which I was involved. The objective of the merger was to unify the two companies’ distribution channels to joint organizational units and merge their global legal entities. Whether you’ve personally dealt with mergers or not, you can rest assured that this is a very complex move, to say the least, and there is no single scenario in which one company is a perfect fit to the other. This kind of move requires first considering several critical questions - What should the new organizational structure be? How would the identity of the unified product line best be maintained? What value is expected to emerge from the merger and how? These are just some of the questions that such a move raise. Some of the managers involved felt they had the answers – they were coming from a position of “knowing”, even though they were not thoroughly acquainted with the other organization, but rather relied upon their previous experience with merger processes (“there are models and procedures which need to be applied”).
Other managers, though, did not feel they had all the answers, and that is precisely where their source of strength lay: a clean slate of sorts that allows joint inquiry; the convergence of emergent questions; the space and freedom of action allowed the many stakeholders to take part and influence the process. I remind you that the execution of this merger had to be done purely via digital platforms (COVID-19). And let me tell you - forming a virtual partnership of over 100 stakeholders, without a structure of direct hierarchy of superiors to report to, demanded infinite creativity and flexibility. I found that the best interface for making this happen would be the use of dialogic leadership, which allowed me to respond to the need for attentive listening and to adopt an approach of “Not-Knowing” – even though I myself came to the table with considerable experience with similar processes.
Dialogic interaction is not simply a “partnership” in the sense of “let’s consult with the parties involved and hear what they have to say”. Instead, it is a truly synergetic understanding of the issues at hand through a collective and egalitarian effort of all stakeholders and the emergence of solutions, based on the team’s universal acknowledgment of the interdependence of all the stakeholders.