The Theorist’s Toolbox: Debunking the Myth of “Practical” Leadership
There is a recurring critique of our work. It is sometimes whispered, sometimes stated plainly, but the sentiment is always the same: "This is all very interesting, but it's too theoretical. It's not practical."
We understand the craving for the practical. Leadership is a relentless series of fires to be fought and hills to be taken. We are tired, we are busy, and we want to know what to do. We search for the five-step plan, the proven checklist, the straightforward technique that promises to solve our problems. The world of business publishing is a multi-billion dollar industry built on satisfying this craving.
And yet, the problems persist. The initiatives still fail. The teams are still disengaged. The re-orgs still create chaos.
The relentless pursuit of "practical" advice is a trap. It is an addiction to simple solutions that makes us blind to the complex nature of the problems we face. It is the act of endlessly rearranging the deck chairs on a ship while ignoring the gash in the hull. The greatest fallacy in leadership is the belief that theory and practice are opposites. They are not. A powerful theory is the only thing that makes intelligent practice possible.
A theory is a lens. It is a model that helps you see the hidden structures behind the surface-level chaos. Without a coherent theory, a leader is merely reacting to symptoms. To act without a theory is to be the most impractical person in the room.
The D.U.M.B. framework is our core theory. It is not an abstract philosophy. It is a diagnostic toolkit. It is a set of lenses designed to reveal the deep, human realities of an organisation that the spreadsheets and project plans will never show you. To demonstrate this, let us move beyond the abstract and apply this "theoretical" toolkit to some of the most common "practical" problems leaders face.
D: The Dynamics of Power and Change: The Stalled Project
The "Practical" Problem: A critical, cross-functional project to launch a new system is hopelessly stalled. The project plan is clear, the budget is approved, and the RACI chart is on the wall, yet deadlines are constantly missed and inter-departmental conflicts are flaring up daily.
The Conventional "Practical" Solution: The response is almost always procedural. We are told to tighten controls. Appoint a more senior project manager. Increase the frequency of status meetings. Create a more detailed dashboard to "enhance visibility." These actions are all based on the implicit theory that this is a project management failure.
The Theoretical Diagnosis: This is where the lens of Dynamics of Power becomes the most practical tool you have. It allows you to see beyond the project plan (the Artefact) and diagnose the political reality. A brief investigation reveals the two VPs sponsoring the project are locked in a silent turf war over who will control the new system once it launches. Their teams, loyal to their leaders, are engaged in subtle acts of sabotage. They delay approvals, question data, and withhold resources, all while professing their full support in the weekly meetings. The project is not a project; it is a battlefield in a proxy war.
The Truly Practical Action: The dashboard is useless here. The RACI chart is a joke. The truly practical work for the leader is not to manage the project plan, but to intervene in the dynamics of power. This means getting the two VPs in a room and refusing to leave until a political solution is brokered. It means forcing a conversation about their competing interests and finding a way to create a shared win. It is difficult, uncomfortable, political work. It is also the only action that has any chance of saving the project. The "theoretical" lens of Power reveals where the real, practical work needs to be done.
U: Unknowing: The Failed Product Launch
The "Practical" Problem: After 18 months of development and a multi-million dollar marketing launch, a new flagship product fails to meet even its most conservative sales targets. The market is simply not responding.
The Conventional "Practical" Solution: The post-mortem is focused on blame and execution. The marketing campaign was flawed. The sales team was poorly trained. The features were not communicated effectively. The "practical" response is to double down: relaunch with a bigger budget, fire the marketing director, and force the sales team to "try harder." This is based on the theory that the plan was correct and the execution was faulty.
The Theoretical Diagnosis: The lens of Unknowing offers a more humbling and more useful diagnosis. It suggests the core failure was not in execution, but in the arrogance of the initial plan. The organisation operated from a position of "knowing", it knew what the customer wanted and spent 18 months building a perfect, elaborate solution based on that untested assumption. The market's indifference reveals that this assumption was wrong. The failure was baked in on day one.
The Truly Practical Action: A leader who embraces the reality of Unknowing would never approve an 18-month, high-risk "big bang" launch in the first place. The truly practical approach is to design for learning, not just for execution. This means running a series of small, fast, low-cost experiments. Launch a simple MVP to a small market segment. Test three different value propositions with small ad buys. Treat the entire process not as a military campaign to be executed, but as a scientific exploration into the vast territory of what you do not know. This experimental, iterative approach is infinitely more practical because it minimises risk and maximises learning in a complex, unpredictable world.
M: Meaning: The Employee Engagement Crisis
The "Practical" Problem: The annual survey results are in, and they are grim. Engagement is at an all-time low, and talented people are leaving for your competitors. The organisation feels lethargic and cynical.
The Conventional "Practical" Solution: This is where the HR playbook of "practical" fixes comes out. We are told to invest in perks. A new coffee machine. A ping-pong table. "Wellness Wednesdays." We launch a new "employee recognition programme" and spend a fortune on a consultant to help us rewrite our corporate values on the wall. This is based on the theory that engagement is a transactional commodity that can be bought with superficial benefits.
The Theoretical Diagnosis: The lens of Meaning exposes this as a laughable misdiagnosis. People are not leaving due to a deficit of ping-pong. They are leaving due to a deficit of purpose. They sit in endless meetings and process reports, but they have no tangible connection to the impact of their work. They feel like a cog in a machine whose purpose is, at best, unclear and, at worst, irrelevant. The values on the wall feel like a corporate lie when their daily work is a meaningless grind.
The Truly Practical Action: Stop trying to buy their loyalty. The most practical engagement initiative is for a leader to take responsibility for creating meaning. This means obsessively, relentlessly, connecting the work of the team to the real human beings it affects. It means telling stories of customer impact. It means giving teams more autonomy to solve real problems and stripping away the bureaucracy that makes them feel powerless. It means shutting up and listening to what they find meaningful. The leader's most practical skill is not budget management; it is the ability to answer the question, "Why does what we do here matter?".
B: Belonging: The Post-Reorganisation Disaster
The "Practical" Problem: A major re-organisation was announced six months ago. It was designed by top consultants to "increase efficiency and create synergies." On paper, the new structure is flawless. In reality, productivity has plummeted, siloes are more entrenched than ever, and there is a palpable climate of fear and mistrust.
The Conventional "Practical" Solution: The leadership response is to treat this as an information problem. We must "double down on communicating the vision." We run more training sessions on the new processes. We issue memos clarifying the new roles and responsibilities. This is based on the theory that if people just understand the logic of the new structure, they will comply.
The Theoretical Diagnosis: The lens of Belonging reveals this is not an information problem; it is a social and emotional one. The re-organisation, in its ruthless pursuit of mechanical efficiency, shattered the invisible social fabric of the company. It destroyed the informal networks, the trusted relationships, and the team identities that were the true source of productivity. People no longer know who to trust. They feel like interchangeable parts in a machine, not members of a tribe. The new structure is logically sound but socially bankrupt.
The Truly Practical Action: Stop sending memos. The most practical and urgent work for the leader is to become a social architect. It is to intentionally and patiently rebuild the fabric of psychological safety and connection. This means engineering opportunities for new teams to bond over meaningful work. It means the leader demonstrating vulnerability to make it safe for others to do the same. It is the slow, unglamorous, and deeply human work of rebuilding trust, one conversation at a time. The problem is not in the flowchart; it is in the hearts of the people the flowchart scattered.
Conclusion: The Most Practical Skill of All
The world does not need more "practical" leaders who can blindly execute a flawed plan. It needs leaders who can see.
The work we do at The Fractured Lens and through our practice at mentokc is not about providing easy answers. It is about building the capacity for better diagnosis. The D.U.M.B. framework is not a philosophy to be debated; it is a set of diagnostic tools to be wielded. Its purpose is to help you see the power dynamics behind the stalled project, the arrogant certainty behind the failed launch, the vacuum of meaning behind the engagement crisis, and the broken bonds of belonging behind the dysfunctional re-org.
To see these things clearly is the most practical skill a leader can possess. Because only when you see the real problem can you begin to imagine a real solution. The pressure to always be "practical" and to have a ready answer is a heavy burden, one that often damages a leader's ability to be authentic and reflective, a core challenge of the fractured self.
So, the next time you are faced with a complex challenge and someone dismisses a deeper line of inquiry as "too theoretical," ask them this: What is more impractical than a brilliant solution to the wrong problem?