What are the implications: innovation requires that things are not always going right in an organization? There must be variations if the organization is to generate innovations. Scott Page (2011) writes about the generation of multiple ideas (mutations) and suggests that a world filled with many perspectives is one in which good ideas, clear thinking and accurate information is likely to emerge: “if we have lots of diverse paths . . . , we are not likely to make mistakes. If we only have a few paths, mistakes are likely.“ (Page, 2011, p. 240) Page makes the strong case for the important interplay between complexity and diversity. Systems that are complex and diverse will be more resilient and amenable to change:
“Systems that produce complexity consist of diverse rule-following entities whose behaviors are interdependent. . . . I find it helpful to think of complex systems as “large” in Walt Whitman’s sense of containing contradictions. They tend to be robust and at the same time capable of producing large events. They can attain equilibria, both fixed points and simple patterns, as well as produce long random sequences. (Page, 2011, pg. 17)”
There is one thing we have learned in recent years with regard to the viability of systems that has almost become an axiom: if there is extensive variability (disturbance) within the environment in which an organization operates, then there must also be extensive variability (diversity) inside the organization. Page identifies this axiom as the Law of Requisite Variety:
“. . . the greater the diversity of possible responses, the more disturbances a system can absorb. For each type of disturbance, the system must contain some counteracting response. . . . The law of requisite variety provides an insight into well-functioning complex systems. The diversity of potential responses must be sufficient to handle the diversity of disturbances. If disturbances become more diverse, then so must the possible responses. If not the system won’t hold together. (Page, 2011, p. 204, 211)”
What are the ways these insights can be applied to strategies that enable the center to hold? In order to promote diversity of ideas and perspectives, a leader such as Abraham Lincoln must value variability within the system (cabinet) they are leading. Variability, in turn, challenges the center of any system. Variability requires that the leaders and other members of the system tolerate increased ambiguity, effectively manage conflict, and provide safe settings in which alternative ideas can be explored. Therefore, leaders such as Lincoln must identify strategies that enable members of their organization live with ambiguity, work with conflict and provide safe places for idea exploration.
Emancipation Proclamation as a Divisive yet Innovative Move
There is no better example of this search for a center that can hold in the midst of diverse perspective than in Lincoln’s drafting of the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln was struggling with his own evolving perspective(s) regarding slavery and the ultimate purpose(s) of the civil war—influenced, in part, by his multiple conversations with Frederick Douglass (further evidence of Lincoln’s openness to alternative perspective). He was not alone. Members of his cabinet were wrapped up in their own internal conflicts and conflict with one another regarding slavery. Kearns Goodwin (2005, p. 462) offers the following account:
