Reflections on Chaos

            The ‘Chaos Game’ was played/conducted with a group of ten people.  However, this group of people was not co-workers that belong to the same organization; it was a group of people that happen to train in martial arts together (e.g. Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu).  There was significance in this.  In this game of ‘chaos’, the randomness of the players added even more complexity.  After all, it was a group of people from varying professions, educational backgrounds, and experiences.  In this group, how the military veteran thinks and acts can be very different from the medical doctor or the IT specialist.  In addition, the demographics of the players included young and old, modest to financial success, male and female, and so forth.  Each player had his or her own belief of leadership and order.  Moreover, each experienced ambiguity and uncertainty under extremely different circumstances.  Really, the only commonality for most was they trained in the same art.  In contrast, this author believed that in a group of co-workers, there would be an increased likelihood of ‘like-mindedness’ because of the commonality of work – similar education, similar exposure to leadership, order, uncertainty, etc.  Moreover, there would be ‘cliques’ at work so people would tend to gravitate into organized groups.  The like-mindedness, he believed, would make the game easier.  Although Obolensky (2012) assured the game organizer (this author) that this seemingly (near) impossible task would find order, he still considered the outcome hard to fathom (Obolensky, 2014).  Surely, when there is complete randomness in the players, the game could not possibly end quickly.  Moreover, this author believed that the players were simply ‘going through the motions’ to appease their friend who had homework to do.  Yet, to this author’s surprise, order was derived out of perceived chaos and complexity and the game resulted in the way it was described to be (in less than two minutes).  This game provided this author with the perfect illustration of the eight principles to confront complexity.  Those principles being a clear individual objective; a few simple rules; continuous feedback; discretion and freedom of action; skill/will of the participants; underlying purpose; clear boundary; and a tolerance of the players for uncertainty and ambiguity (Obolensky, 2014).  In no such way could order have been established if one person were directing all of the movements – that person who have needed the processing power of a supercomputer!  Thus, some implications on strategy are simplicity in the process and the empowerment of people.  As with the game, a single leader would not have the ‘visibility’ of all of the moving pieces to make the best decision at any given time.  As Sull & Eisenhardt (2012) wrote, a simple framework (with simple rules) led to employees making on-the-spot decisions and adapting to constantly changing environments (Sull & Eisenhardt, 2012).  An example of this is the company Semco.  Semco has strived to have a flat hierarchy, which is, “distributing decision-making authority out to everyone” (Kastelle, 2013, p. 2).  It was even written that employees bet on how long between the periods in which the CEO actually make decisions (Kastelle, 2013).  This has led to employee adaptability and innovation – the company has experience success, growing at a 20% rate for the past three decades (Kastelle, 2013).  As the ‘chaos game’ illustrated, many independent decisions (with a sole purpose in mid) can achieve a common goal.

 

References

Kastelle, T. (2013, November 20). Retrieved from hbr.org: https://hbr.org/2013/11/hierarchy-is-overrated/

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership - Embracing paradox and uncertainty. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Sull, D., & Eisenhardt, K. (2012). Simple rules for a complex world. Harvard Business Review, 68-74.

Changing Dynamics of Leadership

            A shift is in leadership is occurring in business.  Obolensky (2014) wrote that the balance of leadership has shifted from the few i.e. an oligarchy to the many i.e. a polyarchy (Obolensky, 2014, p. 19).  The impetus for this phenomenon is that the business world has changed (and will continue to change) due to continuing changes in human socio-conditions.  Some conditions, as noted by Obolensky (2014) are technological advancements in military, communication, and transportation (Obolensky, 2014, pp. 12-14). 

            Thus, changes in technology are one reason for the shift in leadership.  Technology has given business the capability to grow globally.  For example, a U.S. based (and American owned) business can operate in many geographical locations around the world.  However, a business operating globally faces complexity – it operates within the laws and norms of a host country, different ethnicities, and different cultural subsets.  As such, a unique strategy must be applied in to meet the opportunities and challenges in each of the aforementioned contexts (Dewhurst, Harris, & Heywood, 2012).  In other words, Dewhurst, Harris, & Heywood (2012) assert that a business must be able to adapt its product and/or service to meet local needs.  Thus, this strategy requires local leadership “on the ground” to meet local needs (i.e. polyarchy).

            The second and third conditions for change are the rise in human awareness and the change in leadership assumptions (Obolensky, 2014, pp. 14-18).  The rise in human awareness generally refers to our (human) understanding of the world or lack thereof (Obolensky, 2014, p. 16).  Business recognizes that an oligarchic leadership structure cannot adequately confront ambiguity.  For instance (and referring to the aforementioned U.S. company), senior leadership back in the U.S. does not have the information and specific domain knowledge of a given area (say China) to make the best decision in regards to dynamic events.  Therefore, business must rely on polyarchy and rather than senior leaders exercising command and control, they must relinquish control and empower followers.  Although human awareness does not inherently mean a formal education, education is a factor that leads to the change in leadership assumptions.  According to a report, between 1990 and 2014, the percentage of adults 25 to 29 years old (in the U.S.) who had completed a bachelor's or higher degree increased from 23 percent in 1990 to 34 percent in 2014 (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015).  This one example shows that there is an ever-growing population of educated adults.  The illusion that leaders are smarter than their followers does not necessarily ring true anymore.  Thus, employees want more responsibility and empowerment.  In addition, business is willing to give it to them because it also understands the benefit when both the leader and the follower share responsibility in the common goals and outcome (Burns, 1978, p. 20).  

            The successful business – the one that empowers its employees (aka junior leaders) – also benefits from solutions (to problems) being thought of and developed at the proverbial point of where the ‘axe meets the grind’ (Obolensky, 2014, p. 36).  This bottom up approach to decision making requires that business consider leadership development at the beginning of an employee’s career.  This applies to all employees.  Although not every employee will rise to become a leader in the organization, the traits of leadership e.g. awareness, effective communication, intuition, initiative, etc. can be instilled into each employee.  Thus, in the words of Obolensky (2014) the organization overall can transform “…from a machine type organization which can be ‘run’ to a more fluid organic type of organization which runs itself” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 27).  As for the leadership dynamic, leadership must change from transactional to transformational leadership.  A transformational leader inspires his or her followers in the pursuit of a common goal while also mentoring them to become leaders themselves (Burns, 1978, p. 20).

References

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Dewhurst, M., Harris, J., & Heywood, S. (2012, June). Retrieved from www.mckinsey.com: http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/the-global-companys-challenge

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership - Embracing paradox and uncertainty. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The Condition of Education 2015. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Complexity Science

            Currently, I work as a substitute teacher so I don’t have much insight into the strategy of my local county school system.  However, I did have a career in the U.S. Army that spanned two decades and witnessed how its (the Army) strategy has evolved over time.  The strategy that I am speaking about refers to the Army’s doctrine to warfighting.  To scope the concept of warfighting strategy down even further, I am referring to the strategy employed during the “Cold War” to the current strategy to address the “Global War on Terror” (GWOT).  The “Cold War” was a period beginning in 1947 (after World War II) and ending in 1991 (History, n.d.).  The general strategy was to stop the spread of communism and to contain its agents (History, n.d.).  This strategy of containment was relatively simple (compared to GWOT strategy) because the agents were easily identifiable e.g. the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc., and their agenda was to spread communism (History, n.d.).  As needed, the Army’s warfighting strategy was to amass large combat forces against an aggressor in a defined geographical area.

            Although the U.S. had been fighting terrorism decades before, it could be strongly argued that the “Global War on Terror” began on the day of September 11, 2001.  On that day, terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the World Trade towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania (History, n.d.).  From that day on, the U.S. Army was now tasked to fight a different enemy.  Yet, the strategy used during the Cold War e.g. containment, would not apply here.  The GWOT was very complex and very chaotic.  The agents of terrorism were not easily identifiable – they could be lone individuals or groups of any nation, ethnicity, or geographical area.  Moreover, a terrorist’s motive and agenda could be spurred by countless factors.  Needless to say, the Army had to adapt its strategy to meet these new complexities.  The Army adapted in these ways (but not limited to these examples).  First, the Army became a modular force.  The Army developed Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) that were comprised of several functional specialisms e.g. infantry, artillery, aviation, and sustainment battalions (Global Security, n.d.).  The BCT is akin to the ‘matrix’ organization – the matrix organization is cross-functional, assigned to a product line or region (Obolensky, 2014, p. 25).  Second, the Army had to adapt to confront a variety of operations (we’ll refer as product lines) – it would no longer be just a warfighting machine.  For instance, in the context of the GWOT, the “product line” is the type of contingency operation e.g. direct combat action, humanitarian support, stability and support operations (SASO) aka “nation building”, etc. (Wright, 2010). Although humanitarian support and SASO may not seem like a fit in fighting terrorism, they are.  The objective is not only to contain but also to prevent the behaviors that cultivate terrorism (Wright, 2010).

            Though I am no longer in the Army, I envision that it will continue to adapt to the ever growing complexities of a world in which socio-economics, religion, culture, etc. can motivate the U.S.’s enemies.  It must continue to evolve from a ‘matrix’ type organization to a CAS (Complex Adaptive System) organization.  Instead of having modular BCTs, the Army must have the capability for units/teams that are “formed, perform and then disappear as the need arises” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 26).  This is especially true in a time of military downsizing and reduced defense budget spending where the Army must still meet its mission but with fewer resources (Thompson, 2013).

References

Global Security. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.globalsecurity.org: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/bua-list.htm

History. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.history.com: http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/cold-war-history

History. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.history.com: http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-attacks

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership - Embracing paradox and uncertainty. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Thompson, L. (2013, May 13). Retrieved from www.forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2013/05/13/budget-cuts-are-killing-military-preparedness/#35410e6617dc

Wright, D. (2010, May). Retrieved from usacac.army.mil: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/csi/docs/DifferentKindofWar.pdf

Complex Adaptive Systems

            In the opinion of Andy Law, chair and co-founder of St. Luke’s Communication, the company found success because of its “determination to continuously reinvent itself” (Coutu, 2000, p. 144).  The ‘reinvention’ Law spoke of is the employees evaluating themselves and their peers (e.g. work performance) (p. 144).  Yet, the evaluations had less to do with the traditional work performance metrics (i.e. efficiency, quality of work, etc.) and more to do with one’s vision, creativity, adaptability, and the like (p. 155).  Moreover, the employees are evaluated on their willingness to embrace and/or take risks.  The organization’s structure is a polyarchy – there are no bosses (p. 155).  Rather than being ‘run’ by management, the employees run themselves.  In addition, the employees share in the ownership of the company (p. 147).  Therefore, each employee has am equal and significant stake in the success or failure of the company.  For someone like myself, who spent a career in a very hierarchal work setting (e.g. the Army), this would seem like anarchy.  I would also assume that this type of organizational structure is risky because it is assumed that the employees intuitively know what to do.  Yet, in the case of St. Luke’s, this type of complex adaptive system (CAS) works well.  Obolensky (2014) writes that a CAS hierarchy is, “…rather flat, dynamic and more to do with meeting the needs and expectations of external stakeholders than actually ‘running’ the organization” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 27).  This statement is a seemingly perfect illustration of St. Luke’s business. 

            A company that is similar to St. Luke’s image of a CAS is Zappos.  This is a company I have recently become more familiar with (because of this course).  Zappos, the shoe and clothing company, is often recognized for its uniquely successful culture (Patel, 2015).  It is a culture that thrives on creativity and a bit of anarchy (the good kind), where simplicity comes out of chaos.  This is illustrated in physical form by the layout of the Zappos headquarters – everyone works in an open layout with the boss right in the middle!  Several of Zappos ‘family core values’ align with the concept of a CAS.  These core values are: embrace and drive change; be adventurous, creative, and open-minded; and pursue growth and learning (Zappos, n.d.).  Much like St. Luke’s organizational structure, Zappos is polyarchy.   To reiterate a previous point, Obolensky (2014) writes that a CAS hierarchy is, “…rather flat, dynamic and more to do with meeting the needs and expectations of external stakeholders than actually ‘running’ the organization” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 27).  Consider this statement by Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh, “Zappos is a customer service company that just happens to sell shoes” (Zappos, n.d.).  Zappos embodies the CAS organization – where communication and interaction goes from the ‘top’ e.g. boss to the bottom and back, as well as to other stakeholders and customer ( (Obolensky, 2014, pp. 29-31).

            As a leader in an organization facing today’s (and future) complexities, I must focus on certain actions to move my organization forward.  First, I must acknowledge that change will occur.  Most likely, the impetus for change will be driven by external forces e.g. the customer, a rival, the economy, the natural environment, etc.  Secondly, I must build a diverse and cross-functional team that can meet a variety of challenges.  A diverse and cross-functional team benefits from the different perspectives and backgrounds of various employees.  This is necessary as complexity crisscrosses the barriers of knowledge, skill, and function.

References

Coutu, D. (2000). Creating the most frightening company on earth. Harvard Business Review, 142-150.

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership - Embracing paradox and uncertainty. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Patel, S. (2015, August 6). Retrieved from www.entrepreneur.com: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/249174

Zappos. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.zappos.com: http://www.zappos.com/core-values

Butterfly Effect

            Complexity science is a must for global organizations in today’s connected world.  A global firm will provide goods and/or services to peoples to different nations, cultures, religions, geographical regions, etc.  In addition, the firm’s employees, vendors, business partners will also be of different nations, cultures, religions, geographical regions, etc.  Consequently, there are exponential factors (the “x”s) that collectively affect the business strategy and the firm’s operations.  Yet, when a problem or issue (the “y”) arises, a clear connection to any one (or more) x’s may not be evident.  Thus, complexity science is the study of a complex system, such as a global firm, where the interaction of all the x’s do not clearly show a ‘cause and effect’ on an outcome (Obolensky, 2014, pp. 56-57).  The notion of ambiguity can be daunting to leaders.  Leaders generally want to reduce or mitigate risk and/or to reduce or eliminate variation.  Yet, Obolensky (2014) asserts that, “the underlying nature of things is chaotic, uncertain and hard to understand…” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 67). 

            In a complex system with many parts, a single approach or focus to problem solving will not work.  Each factor, the “x”, must be considered and addressed as applicable.  I had a former mentor once tell me, “How do you eat an elephant?”  The answer was, “One bite at a time.”  Now this idea could be approached in two ways.  In an oligarchy, the tasks are actioned sequentially (i.e. step A, B, C, etc.) with a few decision makers.  While this method provides a lot of control, it takes a lot of time and is inefficient.  In contrast, in a polyarchy, the tasks are disaggregated and compartmentalized and managed by many separate decision makers.  The tasks can then be actioned concurrently.  However, with this method, “control” moves towards anarchy end of the spectrum and the actions may not be coherent in achieving the collective goal.

            An implication of complexity theory is that every “part” of the system, i.e. a global organization must understand the vision or mission statement, and each part works to collectively achieve the goal.  Another implication is that knowledge should be documented and shared e.g. a knowledge management system.  For example, in my previous organization (the U.S. Army), subordinate leaders (from any organization around the world) could submit their “lessons learned” to the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL).  Interestingly, many solutions to complex situations came from the bottom up.  This is one example of which “small changes yield large results” – where the input of a soldier from the field can have widespread Army effects.  The collective sharing of knowledge and experiences certainly helps in reducing ambiguity.  For instance, my unit may encounter a problem for which we have no solution but another unit may have already been through it and fixed it.  It reminds me of the adage, ‘Don’t reinvent the wheel’.  Another example of the butterfly effect in business is impact of using a Lean methodology such as 5S.  5S stands for sort, set in order, shine, standardize, and sustain (Kaizen Institute Consulting Group, n.d.).  5S methodology is meant to be used at the lowest levels (at the individual employee at his or her workspace) with benefits to the entire enterprise. 

References

                  

Kaizen Institute Consulting Group. (n.d.). Retrieved from us.kaizen.com: https://us.kaizen.com/knowledge-center/what-is-5s.html

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership - Embracing paradox and uncertainty. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.