Control: The Leadership Paradox

Modern business too often operates under a colossal misconception: that the world is complicated but ultimately controllable, and that rational planning, scientific methodology, big data and - these days - AI, can deliver successful outcomes. In reality, many of our most important business challenges are not merely “complicated” but complex— and this distinction matters. The initiatives that really matter in modern business almost always mutate and evolve in unpredictable ways. Goals and plans, so beloved by MBAs and management consultancies, can certainly help in stable, mechanistic scenarios like old-style production lines. But in today’s dynamic landscape—full of disruptions, innovation quests, and the unpredictable psychology of customers—they often fall short.

If you’ve ever poured time, effort, and money into an elaborate strategic plan, only to watch it unravel six months later due to shifting customer preferences or employee resistance or unexpected competitor moves, you already sense the problem: the real world doesn’t bend to our carefully laid-out procedures. We’re essentially applying tools designed for complication (like an engineering assembly line) to an environment of complexity (think war, pandemics, or global consumer habits). It’s like using a map of London’s streets to navigate the Amazon rainforest—informative in theory, but useless when you’re actually hip-deep in vines.

And, yet, most businesses persevere with toolkits dominated by the primacy of goals and linear plans. Why?

The Allure of Control—And Why It Fails

Why do so many leaders keep banging their heads against this wall? Because the promise of control is enticing and often blinds us to what we know about the real world. Senior executives are supposed to “deliver results,” which often gets interpreted as “master every variable.” Consulting firms tout frameworks and spreadsheets that map out each step. AI tools promise predictive models that cut through uncertainty. Each pitch whispers, “Do this, and you’ll be in charge of your destiny.” No wonder leaders buy in: who wouldn’t want that neat “best practice” solution, that bulletproof plan to outmanoeuvre the competition? No wonder boards back leaders who claim to have the solution.

Yet time after time, reality disagrees. Because complexity isn’t just “really complicated.” In a complicated scenario—like building an internal IT system—a thorough plan from experts can, in fact, work. Complex environments, by contrast, produce interactions and feedback loops that can’t be fully predicted or broken down into neat steps. Think of sales in a new market, or launching a never-before-seen product. Studies, data, and methodical plans still matter, but they’re insufficient for dictating outcomes. As the organisational theorist Dave Snowden points out, it’s much better to define a direction of travel and then conduct small, “safe to fail” experiments—because in complex domains, you learn by doing and seeing what emerges, not by analysing every nuance upfront.

Lessons from War: Clausewitz and the Myth of “Scientific” Campaigns

This insight isn’t new. Two centuries ago, the military world wrestled with an early version of this debate. Some generals were seduced by the idea of “scientific warfare,” believing that with enough data on cavalry, artillery, and logistics, the entire battlefield could be orchestrated like clockwork. It never worked. As Carl von Clausewitz famously noted, no plan survives first contact with reality. The uncertainties of war—terrain, weather, morale, and the enemy’s unpredictably brilliant (or foolish) moves—made it impossible to micromanage everything.

Clausewitz’s observation undercuts the assumption that more data equals more reliable control. You can (and should) gather information, but if you assume your master plan will remain valid once the fog of war sets in, you’re heading for disappointment. Business is often a gentler battlefield, but the principle stands: top-down, linear planning soon collides with the messy swirl of real life.

Why the Old Tools Flourished in Industry

Where did we get this near-religious faith in goals and plans as the route to success? In part, from Frederick Winslow Taylor in the early 20th century. He pioneered “scientific management” on factory floors, showing that time-and-motion studies could transform labor efficiency. It was transformative—in stable manufacturing contexts. But many organisations transplanted these mechanistic methods onto everything else: sales, innovation, strategy, leadership. And at first, it appeared to work, especially in a postwar era when markets were less turbulent.

But as global competition intensified, technology advanced, and consumer preferences shifted quickly, these mechanical techniques met their match. It’s like building a gorgeous new assembly line for a product customers no longer want. Goals and plans are perfect for complicated tasks but ill-suited for the fluid complexities of a digital, hyper-connected marketplace.

Non-Binary Thinking: A Middle Way

Of course, this doesn’t mean scrapping rationality altogether or ditching data. It’s not “use big plans” versus “embrace chaos.” As Rory Sutherland—a champion of behavioural economics—argues, real people don’t always act rationally. They have biases, quirks, and emotional triggers that defy neat logic. So we do need data, but we also need the humility to realize it won’t yield a foolproof control mechanism.

Executives often resist this middle ground. Admitting that meticulously calculated goals may not guarantee success feels like heresy, especially to boards that equate “being in control” with managerial competence. Yet the alternative isn’t anarchy or whimsy. It’s a structured but more flexible approach: you still use data and analysis, but you recognise they’re partial guides. You set a direction, you allow room for ongoing, small experiments, and you stay alert to emergent patterns so you can pivot quickly.

Snowden’s “Safe-to-Fail” Experiments

Enter Dave Snowden’s “Cynefin framework,” which categorizes environments as simple, complicated, complex, or chaotic. The crux of his advice? Don’t treat complexity as if it were complicated. Rather than cling to a rigid plan, you “probe-sense-respond.” The hallmark tactic is safe-to-fail experiments: small-scale tests you can afford to let flop. Because in a complex system, failure is informative. It teaches you how things behave without tanking the entire enterprise. Over time, these little probes reveal which paths are fruitful and which are dead ends.

Think about launching a new product line in a fresh market. Rather than bet everything on a single grand strategy, you might run parallel micro-pilots—different price points, distribution channels, or marketing messages. You watch results, double down on what works, and abandon what doesn’t. Yes, that demands courage, iteration, and the willingness to let go of the “one big plan” fantasy. But it often yields superior outcomes, and it’s entirely rational—just not in the linear sense many boards expect.

The Military’s Surprising Solution

The military eventually solved the Clausewitzian puzzle through what Stephen Bungay calls “mission command.” Instead of issuing dictatorial plans, the generals provided clear intent (“Here’s what we must achieve and why it matters”) and empowered field commanders to interpret how best to accomplish it as events unfolded. Everyone knew the overall goal and the boundaries, but local decision-makers had the freedom to adapt. The paradox is that by ceding the illusion of total control, generals gained more effective, responsive forces.

And so it goes in business. The best leaders figure out how to provide clarity—defining goals and constraints—without smothering teams in micromanagement. Crucially, they cultivate a culture of trust and rapid feedback loops so that as soon as something changes, front-line people can pivot while staying aligned with the broader strategy.

The Wisdom to Surrender Control

It’s no accident that “Let go to get ahead” sounds glib. Realistically, letting go is tough, especially when boards demand accountability and measurable progress. But mission command shows there’s a disciplined way to do it. You clarify priorities, you keep people focused on the “why,” and you insist they backbrief their understanding. That sort of alignment is far deeper than piling on more spreadsheets.

The final takeaway is perhaps the hardest pill to swallow: genuine adaptability requires a mindset shift. Goals, plans, and metrics aren’t useless—but they’re not the universal key to success either. Especially in fast-moving, complex domains, leaders who accept that “the plan will change” end up better able to shape the ultimate outcome. Yes, it demands more wisdom and humility, and it’s at odds with the historical expectation that executives maintain rigid control. But, as the military discovered 200 years ago—and as modern innovators keep proving—letting go of the illusion of control may be the most powerful leadership move of all.