Complexity Science

A633.3.4.RB

Reflect on your own organizations strategy and how it has evolved over time. Discussing each stage of development and how feedback and strategy formulation have evolved. Consider the next stages in your company's evolution and describe what it will look like in 10 years and where will you be?

Not long after retiring from the military, I went to work for the State of TN which lasted for a better part of a year. This department underwent an evaluation and it was determined that in order to improve it services and regulating State laws, new capabilities (inspectors) were needed. Thus, the department’s strategy was to extend its influence and improve its customer service by being proactive throughout the State; by assigning inspectors to geographical locations. As I was coming on board as the supervisor to lead and manage this new team (capability), I had an in-depth discussion with the director as to her vision, priorities, and expectations for the departments new resources. With this information in mind, I began to shape the conditions that supported the director’s guidance such as: training, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), evaluations/expectations, etc. As we began to gain traction as a new team, we began to require further direction/guidance relating to department policies, many of which never existed or were extremely outdated. Furthermore, with new capabilities comes new demands for resources and systems administratively and operationally. Roger Martin (2010), identifies five important questions when developing a new strategy:

1. What are our broad aspirations for our organization & the concrete goals against which we can measure our progress?
2. Across the potential field available to us, where will we choose to play and not play?
3. In our chosen place to play, how will we choose to win against the competitors there?
4. What capabilities are necessary to build and maintain to win in our chosen manner?
5. What management systems are necessary to operate to build and maintain the key capabilities?

From the onset, the new strategy looked good on paper, but the planners failed to take into account the second and their orders of effect of adding to the department as indicated above in Martin’s (2010) question 4 & 5. Doing my best to maintain momentum, I felt I was constantly trying to “pull” information and guidance from the decision maker (director) as little to no delegation or empowerment was exercised or encouraged.

Attempting to remain positive and see the situation from the perspective as “growing pains” but not wanting to get bogged down, I took the initiative wherever I could. It didn’t take long to realize that initiative in this environment was not viewed or accepted as it was in the military. In fact, I believe that initiative in this politically charged environment meant one of two things, 1) your making a power play against someone, 2) your making more work for everyone else. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that although the department had good intentions in adjusting the strategy, nothing more was weighed or considered and wishful thinking drove the process. For example, there was no departmental prep to absorb and utilize the new group of inspectors, such as: training, equipment, and transportation for inspections. Also, no proactive steps were taken to update department policies which governed State requirements for customers (public) and guided inspector’s efforts as they perform their assigned duties. Furthermore, with the addition of the department’s new capability, the leaders and the department at large continued to operate as it always had and only knew how too. Many of the sections within the department were compartmentalized and rarely knew or understood what then next section was doing or how their efforts contributed to the department’s overall strategy. According to Obolensky (2014), “The extent to which the strategy is clear across the organisation is often a headache for many top executives. Clarity means that everyone in the organisation understands the overall big picture strategy and how they fit within it” (p. 29). Clearly this was a significant factor to the department’s reactive operation vs proactive aspirations, which also served as it biggest obstacle.

Needless to say, I decided that this organization was not prepared or capable of reaching their desired path and I needed to move on. I believe that this department’s strategic evolution has the potential to positively affect the people of Tennessee, only when its leaders have the organizational and strategic capacity to evolve and challenge the status quo. In the above case, the strategy evolution never fully developed as a result of poor planning, reluctance to change, and leader’s capability to lead transformation and adaptability.

References

Martin, R. (2010). Five Questions to Build a Strategy. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/05/the-five-questions-of-strategy.

Obolensky, N. (2014) Complex Adaptive Leadership (2^nd edition): Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (p. 29). Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Complex Adaptive System

A633.3.3.RB

Find a company which reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and reflect in your blog what the implications are for you and your present organization (or any organization you are familiar with). Identify what you believe are appropriate actions to move your organization forward.

The dynamics that contribute to organizational 

evolution continues to increase with technological and communication advances necessary to be effective in the globalization market. This evolution has spurred the transition from the function silo model to the cross-functional matric model to the more agile Complex Adaptive System (CAS) organization. The significant contrasting cornerstone of CAS as noted by Obolensky (2014), “What forms the foundation (or cornerstones) of this dynamic are clear people processes and policies, sound and flexible information and communication technology systems, and transparent, inclusive and flexible strategy development processes” (p. 25).

Creating an environment with limited boundaries, where employees have increased responsibility and creativity without the traditional manager directing every task seems to be a “long stretch” at first glance. Yet, companies like Morning Star and St. Luke’s have not only successfully transitioned to a CAS organization, but they have become industry leaders in their respective fields as a result of their efficiency and freedom of movement. For example, employees at Morning Star, employees are essentially their own boss and are driven by a personal mission statement which guides their efforts. Furthermore, they are empowered to make purchases, hire and work with colleagues that directly contribute to the company’s purpose more quickly than the traditional bureaucratic organization mode (Hamel, 2011). Likewise, St. Luke’s has risen to the top of their industry embracing the CAS. According to Diane Coutu (2000), “The St Luke's approach to business is underscored by the firm's unique organizational structure. The company has no bosses and is entirely owned by employees. Perhaps it's not surprising, then, that St Luke's boasts an unusually high level of staff loyalty,” she continues, “St Luke's pursues its goal by carefully managing a paradox: it pushes its people to take enormous risks, but it has built a working environment that feels as safe to its employees as, say, a small-town bank in the 1950s” (p. 144).

Another company that uses the Complex Adaptive System is Extreme Programming which was started in March 1996. This company works to improve software projects using five essential methods: communication, simplicity, feedback, respect, and courage (Extreme Programming, 2013). Most importantly, this company places emphasis on its employees, customers and developers all on the same plane to enhance collaborative effort and team work. In fact, by using the CAS, this company is capable of adapting their teams and resources according to the challenge at-hand and allowing for a more responsive and timely action.

The most surprising aspect of Extreme Programming is its simple rules. Extreme Programming is a lot like a jig saw puzzle. There are many small pieces. Individually the pieces make no sense, but when combined together a complete picture can be seen. The rules may seem awkward and perhaps even naive at first, but are based on sound values and principles (Extreme Programming, 2013).

Personally, I have never had the opportunity to with an CAS organization. I come from a military background that naturally has a ridged hierarchy structure and clear command channels. Although the military is structured and operated as a hierarchy, I have experienced and observed leaders at all levels encouraging creative solutions to complex problems by allowing for wide boundaries (yet still structured) in order to provoke adaptability and agility. I believe that if an organization was committed to move their organization towards a CAS organization, the organizational leaders (and employees) must be educated and trained in what a CAS is and how it operates (edge of chaos). For if a leader is not well versed in the CAS, they would attempt to run the organization in the manner they are comfortable with and know, which sabotages their own efforts. Furthermore, leaders should also become familiar and practiced in Taosim. According to Obolensky (2014), “In terms of Tao, this organisational evolution is a move from Yang to Yin, or better still a re-balancing, so that the benefits of Yang are not lost. This is an important point – the process is evolutionary,” Obolensky continues, “So the way these changes and phases are managed is as important as the changes themselves. Organisational change frequently fails due to the perceived need for revolution” (p. 27). As one may observe, being committed to transitioning to CAS and understanding and leading within a CAS are two separate endeavors. Much effort should be placed on the education and training of what a CAS is and how it moves as a fluid organism and the impact of small actions yielding large results (Butterfly Effect).

References

Coutu, D. L. (2000). Creating the Most Frightening Company on Earth (Links to an external site.). Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 142-150.

Extreme Programing: A gentle introduction. (2013). Extreme Programing. Retrieved on August 27, 2016 from http://www.extremeprogramming.org/index.html.  

Hamel, G. (2011). First, Let's Fire all the Managers (Links to an external site.) (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 48-60.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership (2^nd edition): Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Butterfly Effects

A633.2.3.RB

Based on this week's reading, reflect on complexity science and theory in organizations and the butterfly effect (p.66). Identify 2 examples where “small changes yield large results” in your organization.

What are the implication of complexity theory for you and your organization and how can you use this to drive improvements?

When leaders understand how complexity science and theory work within a complex system, such as an organization, leaders have the potential to enhance their organization’s effectiveness with small yet calculated actions and behaviors. “Complexity theory shows us that complex systems can exhibit simple ‘emergent’ behavior” (Obolensky, 2010, p. 88). Indeed, for an organization to be able to balance order and chaos, Obolensky (2010) identifies four common features of a complex system:

•    Self-organized
•    Inter-relatedness
•    Adaptive nature
•    Emergence (p. 89)

Within this complex system, the emphasis is placed more on the leader’s knowledge and understand of the dynamics that affect organizational adaptability and innovation rather than the traditional belief that organizational effectiveness is solely the result of a charismatic and visionary leader. “‘Complexity science shows how the typical focus on “heroic” and charismatic leaders can result in a lack of innovation in modern organisations’. This seems to echo Collin’s ‘A charismatic visionary leader is absolutely not required for a visionary company, and in fact can be detrimental…’” (Obolensky, 2010, p. 95).  A leader that is well versed in in complexity science and theory has the ability to influence organizational effectiveness with small changes as demonstrated by Edward Lorenz’s Butterfly Effect, which states, “small changes can yield large results” Obolensky, 2010, p. 71).

For example, during the summer of 2006, I deployed to Iraq as a Police Transition Team Chief (PTT) where we were charged with training and supporting the Iraqi police (IP) in an effort to improve policing capabilities and relations with local communities. While other PTT Chief (in other areas) were focusing on using designated funds to purchase individual equipment for the police stations that were known to disappear due to a lack of accountability and tracking by the Iraqi police leadership; I decided to focus our efforts elsewhere. In cooperation with the Iraqi police chief, we decided to contract a local company to come in to the stations and remove debris and trash typical in a war-torn environment. Initially I received puzzled reactions within my own chain of command and with other IP leadership, yet when the work was complete, the Iraqi police stations look uncharacteristically cleaned, organized, and inviting for the locals that entered the stations. This small action was implemented to initiate the IP’s image of professionalism and care for their station. This was evident when locals commented that the station looked good and welcoming. Moreover, other Iraqi police officers began to take ownership of their station and its condition as I witnessed one IP scolded another IP for throwing trash on the ground (which was typical) after the improvements were made.

A second example of a small action yielding large results represents an organizations ability to adapt to a new dynamic, which required an addition to the organization’s capabilities to meet the new demands. For example, in 2012 while I lead a Military Police training organization, which consisted of basic training and advanced individual training for civilians entering the Army. My organization was undertaking a new initiative that required training packets to be notarized (new dynamic not previously required) for over 100 trainees, which would require significant logistical planning and resources to complete; ultimately jeopardize other aspects of mandatory training. To prevent a major disruption to our scheduled training with external organizations and gain a capability to better serve our already over taxed cadre, I initiated an organizational policy to have one of my cadre become and serve as a unit notary public. By adding this capability to our organization, we were able to alleviate major movements and better control our time. Typically, our organization would have to coordinate with an administrative office and schedule for a notary public to provide their services, thus we would be at the mercy of their availability. By having this new capability, our organization had greater flexibility to meet the requirements of this new dynamic on our terms. Furthermore, as part of a larger organization that had five sister organizations (training companies), other units began requesting the use of our capability (notary public) because trainees and cadre alike could complete a vital step in a quarter of the time from the traditional method of having to plan, coordinate, and drive across the installation for the same result. Since this capability was deem important by other leaders within the larger organization to make better use of time and increase flexibility, they began to incorporate this resource into their organizations.

When leaders understand complexity science and theory, they are better suited to exercise their ingenuity and influence their organizations effectiveness and strategy. Leaders must encourage innovation and adaptability throughout their organization with action and behavior. Understanding how a complex system works and the methods to influence its behavior, such as the butterfly effect, an astute leader can have a greater impact on this system and its people.

Reference

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Leadership Gap

A633.1.2.RB

Chapter 1 of the Obolensky text begins with a reflective exercise. Create a reflection blog that responds to the questions asked in this exercise.

1.   Has your own attitude to leaders changed in your life, and if so how?

My attitude towards leaders has significantly evolved throughout my life and continues to do so as I pursue my personal and professional goals. I believe there are two main factors that have contributed to this change:

1. Education has been a major factor in my understanding and expectations of what leaders are and how they influence others. Growing up in an environment of mainly minorities with limited opportunities, I came to identify leaders as those in elected positions, teachers, managers of business, and those in authority positions. Basically anyone whom made decisions that affected others and their way of life. As I progressed through my formal education, I realized that leaders (or leadership) is so much more. I began to realize that leaders were those who skillfully united others towards a goal using their characteristics and traits in order to capitalize on the strengths of others to achieve a common purpose. As my education and exposure to leaders increased, my expectation of leaders and their abilities also began to expand. I no longer associated leaders as just those I list above, but with anyone who led others; to include the “informal leader.”

2. The other significant aspect involved my decision to participate in leader roles. First I began seeking leadership roles later in my high school activities and into my college career. In fact, I received leadership training during my undergraduate studies in the Army ROTC program. It was one thing to study and observe leaders, and anther to study and practice leadership. Actively participating in leader roles has (and continues to) provide “real world” lessons of success and failures that have reshaped my concept of leaders and the influence they have.

2.    If we take as a starting point the attitude to those in authority/ leaders as held by your grandparents, and then look at those attitudes held by your parents, and then by you, and then by the younger generation, is there a changing trend? If so, what is it?

As previously noted, in a limited opportunity environment, leaders were mainly those outside of my immediate family as a result of lack of education and values. The values that my family possessed involved working hard to provide for the family. For example, my grandparents and parents had high school educations with no leader experience other than being heads of the family. Furthermore, I believe that as a default, they were aware of their shortcomings and accepted others to be the leaders that influenced the outcomes because fulfilling this role was beyond their scope of knowledge and experience. I do recall growing up as a kid, I too subscribed to this frame of mind only because it was the only example I had. In fact, in my family, I was one of a very few who pursued a higher education and roles of leadership. Having done so, I do notice at times that my parents and other elders yielding to my input or recommendations as they are aware that my knowledge base and experience various matters extend beyond their understanding. I believe that as the younger generations are exposed to social media and real time information outlets, their concept of leader and their influence will evolve much quicker than those that have not shared the same influx of information (i.e. previous generations).

3.   Why do you think that this has occurred?

With the increase of out spoken individuals/groups that flood these mediums (social media, blogs, websites), their willingness to participate and voice their opinions will be easily absorbed and to some degree expected as their generation embraces technological advances that contributes to blasts of information.

Additionally, while we live in a world with more information about leadership and leadership practices why is it that we have an apparent gap in the quality of our leaders and how do you think we can close this gap?

With the ever-changing technological capabilities that shape information sharing and knowledge management, new methods and tools are being developed which increase the dimensions that business and society operate in; thus adding to aspects of chaos. According to Obolensky (2010):

The development of chaos mathematics and quantum mechanics seems to go against traditional deterministic scientific theories hundreds of years old, and yet they have reaped great results… So perhaps it is no surprise that in the field of leadership the need for a more non-deterministic ‘complex’ approach is emerging.

With such advances comes new dynamics to leadership. Today’s leaders need to be adaptive and “plugged-in” to many outlets. More importantly, closing the gap of producing quality leaders will require creative insight and communication that only those who know how to identify and negotiate the influences listed above, will become more agile and adaptive in staying abreast of change in their respective fields and those they mean to lead.

Reference

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Kindle Edition.