AI disruptions, political polarization, global conflicts—uncertainty is everywhere. As today’s leaders squint at a foggy future, they need to discern which tool will serve them best: a map or a compass. 

The map is the business plan—a set of carefully drafted goals to guide future decision-making. The compass represents the leader’s vision and values, providing direction when the unexpected occurs. 

Both are essential. But Julio M. Ottino, a professor of management and organizations at Kellogg, says that many leaders fail to recognize when a map or a compass is more critical. 

Plus, we look at why commitments by organizations to encourage employees to bring their whole selves to work and to speak up against bias—though worthy—also come with a complication employers rarely acknowledge. 

Map or compass?

In today’s choppy business and political waters, it’s hard for leaders to choose the right navigational tool.

Mapping out the future with a business plan is an essential process for any company. But maps impose a structure of predictability on the world when organizations are increasingly operating in environments that are unpredictable and subject to cascading change.  

In such environments, even the most accurate map can lead you astray. And yet, most companies respond to challenges and instability by relying on the map, Ottino says. 

As a result, history is littered with cautionary tales of businesses that weren’t flexible enough—and paid the price. Kodak missed the shift to digital photography; Blockbuster underestimated the threat of Netflix’s home-delivery model.

On the other hand, many legendary business-success stories feature companies steered by leaders capable of adapting to uncertainty. Executives like Steve Jobs and Lisa Su led their companies with a confident internal compass of what should be done regardless of present-day conditions. 

“You need leaders capable of articulating a compelling interpretation of how the world is evolving, so that others are willing to move forward even amid uncertainty,” Ottino says. 

The compass of a visionary leader can help a company turn challenges into opportunities. 

But a runaway compass can be its own kind of disaster. Without a map, it’s impossible to implement and scale even the best ideas, and employees may be discouraged by the whiplash of constantly shifting goals. The most-effective leaders know which tool to use when—a decision that’s built on self-awareness. 

“It depends on the moment that you live in,” Ottino says. “So in today’s uncertain environment, for example, I would say that you should always be thinking, ‘Am I being too rigid? Am I going to my core strength too deeply?’ It all boils down to introspection.” 

Read more in Kellogg Insight.

A quiet trap

When targeted with slurs, people in stigmatized groups generally respond in one of two ways: they either reject the slur or reclaim it—using the slur to label themselves. 

In a recent study, Cynthia Wang, a clinical professor of management and organizations at Kellogg, and coauthors compared these two strategies to determine which might be more effective at defusing a slur. While reclaiming a slur turned out to be better at draining the word of its power, individuals who used this approach suffered in the eyes of observers, who judged them as less likable and less likely to be hired or promoted, the researchers found.

“If the stigmatized group is able to wrest control of that sword, then the other group can’t easily use it as a weapon,” Wang says. But that accomplishment comes at a personal cost. 

When employees from stigmatized groups confront the slurs aimed at them, they help erode those slurs’ power, providing a genuine collective good. Yet the same act can cost them likability, raises, and promotions, draining them of exactly the organizational standing they would need to drive change at a larger scale. Challenging stigma makes a person less powerful, and less power makes stigma harder to challenge. 

Thus, it’s critical for leaders at organizations—many of whom are encouraging their employees to be authentic and combat bias—to be aware of these effects. 

Breaking this cycle, Wang argues, means moving the burden off individuals and onto institutions through policies that address discriminatory language directly, protect the people who speak up, and confront the threat responses that drive the backlash in the first place. 

“It hurts individuals to challenge these stigmas, and so organizations probably shouldn’t place the responsibility on them,” Wang says. “That approach can have individual implications for those in minority groups who are trying to push forward this change.” 

Read more in Kellogg Insight.

See you next week,

Maja Kos, senior academic editor
Kellogg Insight