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.

Leadership gap

            My first experience with leadership (in an organizational context) was when I joined the U.S. Army.  This was the first job I had in which there was a large hierarchal structure of leadership.  I had experienced other forms of leadership from teachers and coaches (i.e. youth sports) but none like military leadership.  Military leadership “guided” almost every aspect of my life – how I ought to think, behave, look, etc.  At the time, it was the type of leadership that I needed considering (at the age of 18) that I was somewhat misguided and undisciplined. I believed that my leaders knew what was best for me and the organization, and therefore I did not question it. 

            My grandparents and parents also held the attitude that “leaders” knew better. However, it had nothing to do with them being misguided and undisciplined but more to do with a cultural upbringing.  Filipinos (like many Asian cultures) can be submissive or passive – not out of fear but out of deference. In the case of my forefathers/mothers, they held the belief that leaders were extraordinary people who deserved to lead. This may stem from the fact that my family was raised poor and lacked education. 

            However, in my life, as I found success in the military and became a leader myself, I realized that an individual has more control of his or her life (and environment) that I previously thought. I am a college graduate (and now pursuing an MBA) and have more control on the outcome of my situation, and relying less on others “leadership”.  My children are also raised to know they can determine their destiny, through their decisions/choices.  Yet, those decisions must be guided by knowledge and critical thinking.  In this day and age, it is inexcusable to be ignorant or naïve. 

            Yet, with all the knowledge, methodologies, courses, etc. dedicated to making better leaders, there is still a gap. Despite the world being more connected, I believe that egocentrism is one reason why leaders have failed.  In some cases, the people who have risen to power are more focused on their own interests than that of the people they lead.  In a complex and ever changing business environment, leaders must strive to develop subordinate leaders – the power to make decisions cannot rest in one person (or a select few).  To correct this, leaders must work to develop the traits of trust, empathy, humility, and fairmindedness to name a few.

Reflections

            I believe that this course was invaluable to my personal, educational, and professional growth.  The only negative aspect was the pace at which I had to conduct my studies and work.  I feel that I could have ‘grown’ more intellectually if given more time to synthesize and apply the concepts of critical thinking.  Yet, I say this understanding that my situation results from an accelerated nine-week term.  More so, I may even say that I may not fully learn everything even if MSLD 500 was several weeks longer.  Further adding to the problem was the fact that I was taking three graduate courses simultaneously and working!  I had pursued my education with the intent of getting as much done in as little time as possible.  Although I always put forth my best effort, I realize that I imposed irrational limits to my learning, that is, ‘learn only what you need to learn to get through it’.  The critical thinking teachings of this course opened my eyes to my error.  The self-reflection blog provided me an avenue to look at myself as a student.  I had never done this before.  What I am learning is not isolated to academia but is useful in all aspects of my life.  Therefore, I have gained appreciation of the knowledge I am given and the mentorship from my professors.  The topics covering action research were especially helpful and relevant.  I now have a better understanding of the distinct differences between quantitative and qualitative research.  Moreover, I recognize the value that each method offers.  I think one way that the university can provide additional support for learning is to collaborate more with aerospace companies and create real-world case studies or problems that students can work on.  One criticism I have heard from leaders/managers is ‘yes, you have the knowledge but have you proven it to work on x, y, or z problem?’ Overall, my experience with this course is positive and I believe the teachings in critical thinking will undoubtedly help in future courses.  

Presentations

            If I am to give a presentation, I consider two things.  First, I ask myself, “What is the purpose of my presentation?”  Another question I ask is, “What does the audience expect?”  I believe this will dictate the freedom and creativity I have when creating the presentation.  The majority of my experiences when it comes to presentations have been isolated to two specific environments, my career in the Army and my time as a university student.  In these two environments, the purpose and the expectation of my presentations were cut and dry – in most cases, I was given specific guidance as to the outlay of the presentation and what information is displayed.  In the Army, MS PowerPoint has become the tool of choice for visually communicating a brief.  For instance, PPT is the tool used to create a ‘storyboard’.  A storyboard reports the loss of life, limb, or eyesight of a soldier (on or off duty); an incident/accident (on duty/off duty and/or involving Army equipment); or other (DUIs, domestic violence, other criminal activity) – reporting the ‘5 W’s’ of the event and there was a very specific template.  In the Army, I was creating a storyboard many times a week!  Senior commanders did not want to hear the news unless you were armed with a storyboard.  Likewise, I have given presentations in ERAU courses in which I was told the outlay of my visual presentation (i.e. text, font, colors, etc.) and how to conduct the verbal presentation (i.e. no less than 8 minutes or longer than 10 minutes).  Students were reminded that no extra points were given for ‘bells and whistles’ on the presentation.  In fact, it may hurt the one’s grade if he or she did not follow guidance.  As a result of these experiences, I have been conditioned to create straightforward (and usually uninspiring) presentations.  However, I do recognize that there will be a time when I may give a presentation in which I must articulate and illustrate a vision, inspire or motivate people, or persuade others of my claim/argument.  In these situations, I must consider these good presentation design elements.  First, the visual presentation is only a supporting tool to my speech.  Second, make the presentation memorable – provide facts, images, and graphs that are easy to understand and remember.  Third, only have the minimum and relevant information needed to get the point across.  Lastly, be a storyteller.  The presentation should be coherent and logically flow from start to finish.

Quantitative research

            Quantitative research is the systematic empirical investigation of observable phenomena via statistical, mathematical or computational techniques (Given, 2008).  In contrast, qualitative research uses non-statistical methods.  Quantitative research can begin when a theory or hypothesis is proposed.  For example, “38% of aviation mishaps at Chicago O’Hare airport are caused by weather”.  In another instance, this author has used quantitative research when he applied Lean Six Sigma (LSS) methodologies to solve a “problem”.  Lean Six Sigma refers to a process that is 99.99966% error free (or in other words, less than 3.4 defects per million opportunities).  When a process falls below the LSS standard (3.4 DPMO) a problem statement aka hypothesis is made.  This type of quantitative research occurs in manufacturing (i.e. aircraft component/part manufacturing) when a good that is produced does not meet specifications.  In both of the above-mentioned scenarios, data is gathered to determine cause-and-effect relationships and the root cause analysis of the errors.  Data is collected from documents/reports where data was collected over time or data can be collected through observation.  In this type of research, the problem and solution can often be straightforward, that is, tangible answers will be produced. 

            However, in social science research, the problem and answer may not be so clear-cut.  For instance, a study may be on the “relationship between intelligence and self-esteem” or “what is an effective organizational leader?”  Quantitative research is used in social science to collect and analyze data to explain phenomena (Mamia, n.d.).   In social science research, the data is collected by using research instruments i.e. questionnaire/survey, interviews, and observation.  Quantitative research focuses on gathering numerical data and generalizing it across groups of people or to explain a particular phenomenon (Babbie, 2010).  Although the data may be quantitative, it demands that the researcher is an expert in the given field and has the intuition to discern and assess the data.  

            The main elements of quantitative research are research design, choice of data collection instrument, and choice of analysis tool (Mamia, n.d.).  Research design refers to the research being either descriptive or experimental.  A descriptive study is observational – the researcher observes the phenomena in its natural setting.  In experimental design, researchers may implement controls.  These “controls” refer to the choice of data collection instrument i.e. surveys, focus groups, etc.  The choice of analysis tool refers to the type of statistical tool i.e. t tests or f tests with significance levels. 

            Quantitative (and qualitative) research will be a tool that I will continue to use in my personal, education, and professional needs.  It will help me to understand and solve problems as well as answer the whys of everyday social phenomena.  For instance, it would be interesting to read a study on why there is a notion of “entitlement” with the millennial generation!

References

Babbie, E. (2010). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage.

Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Mamia, T. (n.d.). Retrieved from erau.instructure.com: https://erau.instructure.com/courses/34959/pages/a500-dot-7-1-dot-cr-readings?module_item_id=1548192