A633.5.3.RB - Shuck, Allison

Reflections on Chaos

The video “Who Needs Leaders” provides an example of the exercise/game Obolensky (2010) describes in chapter six. The object of the game is for 25 or more people to scatter themselves within the boundaries of a room. Then, one person (the leader) tells each person to pick two reference points (two other people) within the room; specifically stating that one cannot indicate who they have picked. Then the leader asks everyone to move around the room until he or she has space his or herself within equal distance from each reference point. Initially the room is in constant flux until order was created. The overall purpose of the game is to show that “the more complex things are, the less traditional leadership one needs” (Obolensky, 2010, pg. 96). This just goes to show that the underlying reality of chaos is order.

Due to the complexity of the game, the number of possible solutions and the way to get to those solutions is huge. It was interesting to see how the game played out. At first, I thought that the people within the room would not be able to position themselves equally in between their reference points. I simply assumed that everyone would remain in constant movement. However, that was not the case, within a two minutes time everyone had stop and order was created.

The key here is to understand the dynamics of chaos and complexity; as well as, the 8 key principles of Complex Adaptive Leadership. In doing so, a leader can become more effective as he or she transitions from oligarchy leadership to polyarchy leadership.  Obolensky (2010), states that “it is the dynamic which exists between these principles that is important, and enables each organization to find their own unique way of applying them.” 

A633.4.3.RB - Shuck, Allison

Changing Dynamics of Leadership

The question was asked, in my opinion what percentage of solutions (0 - 100 percent) actually come from top.

Personally, I believe that only 20 percent of solutions suggested come from the top. Most, if not all solutions come from the bottom. Why do I believe this you might ask? Because top managers/executives know very little about the day-to-day processes/procedures performed within the organization; and, what they do know usually comes from the bottom. Therefore, I believe that only those who know and understand the day-to-day processes/procedures (bottom employees) can build and create strategies to improve them. Thus, I believe that it is important for top management to listen and seek out information from bottom employees. By creating a dynamic flow of information (shifting from top-down to bottom-up) top management can gain insight on the day-to-day processes performed by bottom employee and bottom employees can provide top management with viable information on those processes; reporting to top management what processes are working and what processes are not. Because bottom employees know and understand the day-to-day processes/procedures, they are more likely to suggest alternatives in order to make those processes/procedures more efficient.

Over the years, more and more organizations are being impacted by this dynamic shift in leadership. The transitioning from top-down to bottom-up occurred as result of the stress and strains faced by top management. What we witness is top management clinging onto certainties and comforts of oligarchy while refusing to face the uncomfortable, uncertain realities of polyarchy. As top management begins to accept the natural flow towards polyarchy, structures become more fluid and traditional boundaries began to dwindle. This in turn creates a more dynamic flow of information, allowing transparency to be obtained within the organization. Once transparency has been obtained, top management can began focusing on meeting the needs of bottom employees rather than micromanaging them. 

A633.3.3.RB - Shuck, Allison

Complex Adaptive Systems

Evolutionary companies like Morning Star and St. Luke have established what seems to be an effect cornerstone for flexible strategy development. By instilling clear people processes and policies; as well as, effective communication system technology, both Morning Star and St. Luke’s have captured the essence of organizational effectiveness.   Although the two companies differ in many ways, both Morning Star and St Luke were one of the first companies to implement the self – management model; places emphasis on personal responsibility and personal authority. The self-management model is used to develop and maintain an informal management structure, where hierarchy is flat and information is shared openly.

Due to the success of the self-management model, many companies have started using it. For example, Northrop Grumman Corporation has created dynamic management approach that encompasses a network of agents who act and react in parallel with one another; essentially, creating a self-motivated, self-organized workplace. This type of management approach encourages managers to empower their employees to make decisions that fulfill the team’s commitment to the business/ mission value. I personally think that this approach is a very constructive, because it takes away inner competition and encourages collaboration; in order to succeed; the team must lead and empower one another.

Although, the self-management model works great for Morning Star, St. Luke and Northrop, it is not a common method practiced by many organizations. Embry Riddle for example, has not introduce the self-management model yet, but various departments within the university have taken upon themselves use it. Personally, I prefer the self-management model because it holds the employee to be accountable for his or her actions, good or bad. And, it allows the employee to expand on his or her leadership skills. I feel that the best way to manage people is to let them manage themselves.

Johnson, S. S. (2009). Leadership of management for complex adaptive systems: Agile Practices and Leadership. Northrop Grumman. INCOSE: Chesapeake Chapter, p. 1-27. 

A633.2.3.RB - Shuck, Allison

Complexity Science

In order to appreciate complexity science and theory in organizations, we must first understand the fundamental dynamics of polyarchy. Polyarchy is a revolutionary idea designed to overthrow the assumptions of anarchy (having no leaders - chaos) and oligarchy (have some leaders); Polyarchy simply means having multiple leaders.  So what does complexity science have to do with this? Complexity science provides insight into chaos/complexity and facilitates more effective understanding of polyarchy.  Simply put, complexity science tells us that the underlining nature of reality is chaotic and uncertain, but within chaos and uncertainty, there is order. So, a leader must strive to understand chaos rather than avoid it or replace it.

Based on the information above, it goes without saying that both complex and chaotic system have an underlying pattern. But what happens if we change that pattern?  Any small change within a complex or chaotic system can produce large results that may have otherwise been unpredictable. So, in leadership terms, any small change within an organizations policy could produce large results. Let’s evaluate! Embry Riddle sought to provide its students with the option of choosing his or her learning modality. In the past online student could not take campus classes and campus student could not take online classes. Why, because the number of weeks within a scheduled term were different. Online terms were 9 weeks in length and campus terms were 12 weeks in length. So, in order for Embry Riddle to make this change, the organization had to change the number of weeks within a schedules term, making all terms the same; all terms were change to 9 weeks in length. This small change not only gave students the ability of choosing his or her leaning modality, (Online, Campus, EV Home, EV Class, or Blended) but, it allowed financial aid to be applied to  all classes, no matter the modality, within a schedule term (This use to not be the case due to overlapping term dates).

So let’s review! Any small changes within an organizations policy can produce large results. Chaos has under order and exhibits complex behaviors. “Complex science shows that complexity has an inherent and underlying simplicity” (Obolensky, 2010, pg.91).  And, polyarchy is the fusion of anarchy and oligarchy.  So in order for a leader effective, he or she must strive to understand chaos rather than avoid it or replace it.

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty. Farnham, Surrey: Gower. Pg. 49 – 91.