The tightrope walk of complexity
A few days ago I went to see the play ‘Mrs Hitler, Dr Freud Will See You Now’. The play imagines what might have happened had Adolf Hitler and Freud met. Whilst there was a period of time when both lived in Austria, there is no evidence they ever did. The play traces a series of imagined interactions, allowing us to look at the subject through a psychoanalytic lens. Unsurprisingly, it’s an interesting and disturbing play. One line in particular stayed with me:
“It’s fascinating how, as modern life becomes more complex, the masses look to their leaders for ever more simple solutions.”
It hit home on a number of levels. And you can view it in many different ways. Patronising? Dangerous? Historically, though, it is hard not to see an element of truth in it. The rise of populism in so many countries is a reminder this danger does not go away. And with party conference season in flow in the UK, the temptation for simple explanations in the realm of political leadership is obvious. Soothing, perhaps, but wrong.
Where’s the segue then? Well, it made me wonder if the same temptation exists in the leadership of organisations. Amid ever-increasing volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity, how tempting might it be to reach for seemingly simple solutions? How soothing might it be to believe them? But we know that leading through complexity and change is anything but simple.
I’ve become increasingly interested in this topic in the last few years. Working with senior leaders and learning from leading figures in politics, business and academia, I’ve seen consistently that certain leadership capabilities come to the fore:
Intellectual agility: shifting your assumptions and viewpoint, seeing things through multiple lenses and imagining multiple possible futures. Embracing curiosity and taking a question-led approach. Committing to a line of thinking or a course of action whilst simultaneously realising that at any point you could be proven wrong.
Emotional agility: handling these kinds of shifts and staying grounded takes a special alchemy of confidence and humility.
Resilience: the sum of the above is critical to remaining resilient. But so is adopting a holistic view of our wellbeing—on this, I have found Bob Rosen’s model, which breaks down health into physical, emotional, intellectual, social, vocational and spiritual—to be particularly instructive.
Connection: recognising, understanding and empathising with the needs of those you lead is ever more important.
Optimism: a degree of optimism bias is helpful, because it can help sustain us and those around us. But too much and we risk myopia and a refusal to face hard truths.
Purpose: all of this can be exhausting if you’re not clear why it even matters and what it’s all for.
Cutting across many of these qualities is a mental tightrope that leaders need to walk: just enough optimism without myopia; the agility to shift positions but the confidence to commit to one when needed; emotional resilience without disconnection. Leaders are constantly pulled between extremes. The challenge is not to collapse into simple answers, but to hold the tension, stay agile, and walk the tightrope with clarity of purpose.
If these themes resonate, take a look at our senior leadership journey here: https://www.thelearningspace.uk/ourleadershipdevelopmentoffer
Structure vs Emergence: How do we create the conditions for people to do their best thinking?
It all begins with an idea.
A conversation a few weeks back got me thinking about how we create the optimal environment for deep thinking—and how often that comes down to balancing structure and flexibility.
Early Lessons: Play, Structure, and Freedom
You can take almost any learning context, and that balancing act is in play. In early years education, an environment is deliberately crafted: play equipment is chosen, spaces are arranged, materials are made accessible. These aren’t random decisions—they’re intentional. But within that loose framework, the child is free to explore, be curious, and create.
As learners grow, structure becomes more fixed. In secondary school, knowledge is divided into subjects, topics, and projects—bringing clarity, but also constraint. There’s still space to explore (although I know at least one teacher who would argue not nearly enough—but that’s a topic for another post…).
“It is the tension between creativity and structure that produces the truly new.”
— Dani Shapiro
Even in highly structured settings, it’s often that tension—the creative possibility within boundaries—that allows learning and innovation to take root.
What Happens in the Workplace?
In the workplace, especially in larger organisations, structure is everywhere. We’re defined by roles, departments, and specialisms. And that makes sense—expertise, accountability, and coordination all depend on it.
But as more organisations explore skills-based talent models, those boundaries are being reexamined. Because let’s face it: people’s capabilities rarely fit neatly inside job titles. And often, individuals’ strengths are underutilised within them.
Of course, depth matters. But why shouldn’t someone in finance contribute to a marketing project if they’re a brilliant communicator? Or someone in operations lead on wellbeing if that's their passion?
Structures are useful—until they become limiting. They should serve both the work and the people doing the work. When structure becomes the end rather than the means, we risk missing talent and stifling growth.
What This Means for Learning Design
In my own practice—designing and facilitating leadership and learning experiences—this tension is always present.
Every effective programme has a structure. A clear arc. Well-chosen content. A model or framework can provide clarity and momentum.
But here’s the thing: the value of a model isn’t in the model. It’s in the thinking it enables. That’s where emergent thinking becomes so powerful.
“Emergence is not about control. It’s about creating the conditions for something new to take shape.”
— Margaret Wheatley
We can’t force insight. But we can create the conditions where insight is more likely to emerge—through dialogue, connection, challenge, and space. It's why I named my business The Learning Space.
The Value of Emergence
Every programme I run has moments of improvisation:
An unexpected insight from the group
A question that shifts the direction
A technique I introduce on the fly because it fits the moment
These aren’t deviations from the plan—they’re often the most meaningful parts. They’re where the real learning lives.
“In most learning situations, the unexpected is the most valuable.”
— David Kolb
Over time, I’ve come to value just enough structure: enough to create safety and direction, but not so much that it crowds out autonomy, surprise, or reflection. The richest learning happens when people start thinking for themselves—together—in ways they hadn’t anticipated.
The L&D Challenge: Rigour and Responsiveness
As senior L&D professionals, we’re constantly holding the tension between rigour and responsiveness.
We know that:
Over-engineered learning leads to disengagement
Too much openness can feel ungrounded
Our craft lies in designing for both clarity and emergence
The challenge isn’t new—but it’s becoming more urgent as learning becomes more adaptive, distributed, and human-centred.
So, What’s “Just Enough” Structure in Your Context?
How do you design for both stretch and safety?
How do you create conditions for emergent thinking—not just delivery?
Let’s Talk
At The Learning Space, I help organisations design learning experiences that balance structure with emergence—creating spaces where real thinking, insight, and change can happen.
If you're exploring this tension in your own learning work, let’s have a conversation.
👉 Get in touch | Explore our learning experiences