A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems

According to Obolensky (2014), Complex Adaptive System or CAS is meant to reflect a dynamic organization where teams are formed, perform and then disappear as the need arises. Obolensky (2014) explains that CAS feature flat hierarchy, open information sharing, and great emphasis on personal responsibility. In the CAS system, traditional management levels have been removed, flattening the organization’s hierarchy.  Employees, at all levels, now have increased responsibility and greater control over how they perform their job. Morning Star and St. Luke are two examples of companies that share this methodology (Hamel, 2011).

Morning Star, founded in 1970, is the world’s largest tomato processor and a global market leader. They are not a traditional company with a set hierarchal model of a boss and an employee. According to Hamel (2011) Morning Star no one has a boss, employees negotiate responsibilities with their peers, everyone can allocate companies funds, each individual is responsible for acquiring the tools needed to do his or her work, there are no titles and no promotions, and compensation decisions are peer-based.

Another company that uses the CAS model is St. Luke communications. St. Luke is based out of UK and is an open information sharing, informal hierarchy, with a bottom up and top down dynamic approach to success. The company has no bosses and is entirely owned by employees (Coutu, 2000). The way St. Luke operates reminds me of how Brown (2011) describe CAS teams as “an autonomous group whose members decide how to handle their task” (p. 349).

Both Morning Star and St. Luke’s make use of a complex adaptive system and are finding great success with it. A fairly new company that is taking advantage of the CAS model is Zappos who is owned by Amazon. It has adopted a system of self-governance that effectively has eliminated all management. Zappos employees are self-mange and/or create small teams working toward a given task. Zappos emphasize that holacracy stresses individual autonomy, but it's actually the group's interests that advance (Noguchi, 2015).

In summary, the federal government could benefit from such system; however this system would not work. First the federal government is not a profit-based organization and is heavily structure. Additionally, implementing such a system requires accepting a significant amount of risk. Being able to make decisions without being micromanage is definitely something I personally look forward to.

Reference:

Brown, D. (2011). An experiential approach to organizational development (8^th ed.).  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

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

Hamel, G. (2011). FIRST, LET'S FIRE ALL THE MANAGERS. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 48-60.

Obolensky, Nick (2014-11-28). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Noguchi, Y. (2015, July 21). Zappos: A Workplace Where No One And Everyone Is The Boss. Retrieved January 31, 2016, from http://www.npr.org/2015/07/21/421148128/zappos-a-workplace-where-no-one-and-everyone-is-the-boss

A633.2.3.RB - Butterfly Effect

As we grow as leaders we seem to be more open and adaptable to changes in our environment. Being able to make those small changes will likely have an impact on the outcome of your decisions. As organizations become more complex and decisions have bigger consequences, it’s essential for leaders to be able to implement controls in order minimize risks and increase the likelihood of success. The complexity theory shows us that complex systems can exhibit simple ‘emergent’ behavior (Obolensky, 2014).  Additionally, the Chaos theory shows the opposite in which simple systems can exhibit complex behavior (Obolensky, 2014). In 1961, Edward Lorenz observed a relationship where small events lead to more significant changes in the larger system (Lassiter, 2013). Lorenz originally stated “one flap of a seagull’s wings could change the course of the weather forever” (Lassiter, 2013). He later changed the metaphor from a seagull to a butterfly. To elaborate, the butterfly effect can make a small difference at the beginning, but can have a larger effect in the end when dealing with complex systems. This is because most things in life are part of larger systems; some seemingly trivial events can have significant impact. The butterfly effect can lead to both positive and negative changes in a company or organization and when applied to business, it means that simple actions yield larger rewards. To illustrate, imagine the consequences of 1 degree temperature change has on nature. Due to the temperature change you have longer growing season in Minnesota and Canadian Geese don’t always migrate south (Lassiter, 2013).  An example of the butterfly effect on a large scale is the Pine Tree Riot of 1772 in New Hampshire (The Pine Tree Riot, 2006). It was illegal to cut down any white pine trees larger than 12 inches in diameter.  These trees were reserved for the Royal Navy and were to be used for masts for His Majesty’s fleet (The Pine Tree Riot, 2006). Irritated by the unfair treatment, colonist held a riot and chased the British out of town. Ultimately they were caught and fined, but the act influences other riots like the Stamp Act riots and the Boston Tea Party and ultimately leads to the American Revolutionary War and the declaration of independence from the British. As you can see from these small events there are major connected results.

Two examples where “small changes yield large results” in my organization are the implementation of departmental instructions and utilization of the Eisenhower Matrix to accomplish departmental goals. My department implemented new instructions on the utilization of our robotics program. This instruction provided guidance on how to establish unit base programs and it proved to be effective. Additionally, since the downsizing of our department we had to come up with ways to properly get task accomplish in a reasonable time. Since the introduction of the Eisenhower Matrix, we are able to categorize our task from the most urgent to the least urgent. This change increased our productivity and made our department more efficient.

These theories are still in their infancy stage and there is still implication of uncertainty that still needs further research. In my organization, we have a high level of transparency and open discussions. This method helps build teamwork, improve communications and helps bring uncertainty down. I’m continuing to grow as a leader and I know the importance of a single change can have in an organization.  

 

Reference:

Lassiter, B. (2013, November 25). The Butterfly Effect: Managing Your Organization as a System - Performance Excellence Network. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from http://performanceexcellencenetwork.org/the-presidents-blog/butterfly-effect-managing-organization-system/

 Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (2nd edition.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate

The Pine Tree Riot. (2006). Retrieved January 23, 2016, from http://www.wearehistoricalsociety.org/pineriot.htm

 

 

A633.1.2.RB - Leadership Gap

On October 29, 1941 Winston Churchill gave a profound and inspiring speech at the Harrow School. Churchill said "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense”(Never give in, 2016). I have pondered on this quote by Churchill for quite some time and how it relates to leadership.

My attitude towards leadership has changed as I have grown in life. I have learned to be a leader from life experiences, mistakes and achievements.  From a young age I was taught to be honest, confident and be committed to my dreams. Not giving up on your values and dreams just because they are difficult is what I strive in life. Leadership is more than just leading a group of individual, but is to empower and motivate your subordinates.

According to Obelensky (2014) “leader needs to put in place certain key principles so that the organization being led can become self-leading “ (p. 101).  A study by the Center for Creative Leadership (Leslie, 2009) found that today’s leadership capacity is insufficient to meet future leadership requirements. According to the study, the four most important future skills are; leading people, strategic planning, inspiring commitment, and managing change (Leslie, 2009).
There is a gap of current leaders not being as skilled as they should to effectively manage the current challenges (Leslie, 2009). The challenges that our grandparents and parents faced are different from what our generation is facing. This has to do with the advances in technology and the complex effect it has in today’s global market. Obolensky (2014) describes that advances in technology have caused more uncertainty “The more we know, the less certain things become” (p. 16). Uncertainty has become a driving force in decision makers and it has become a constant challenge, which leaders must overcome.

I believe this occurrence or movement is due to our dependency on technology and not on the fundamental of leadership. For example, how many managers can write a letter without a word processor and why so many people will choose to send e-mail when the individual that you are sending e-mail to is sitting right next to you.  I agree that gadgets such as cars, phones, and computers have all been created over time to make our lives easier and more efficient. But are we leading because a computer tells us to or are we leading because we want to see a movement of growth and sustainability in our organizations. The gaps in leadership can be closed if leaders focus on training and investing on the next generation of leaders. Training leaders to handle the challenges of tomorrow is a key factor to the development of leaders.

Change is inevitable and technology is an integral part of our daily life. As leaders we must be ready to tackle the challenges we face and pass our wisdom to the next generation of leaders. In order to lead we need to be flexible and adapt to our changing environment. Growth is a vital part of leadership and we must be ready to accept the responsibilities it brings. As leaders we must equip ourselves for today in order to lead for tomorrow. 

Reference:

Leslie, J. (2009). The Leadership Gap. Retrieved January 17, 2016, from http://www.hreonline.com/pdfs/02012010Extra_CLCStudy.pdf

Never Give In. (2016). Retrieved January 17, 2016, from http://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/234-1941-1945-war-leader/103-never-give-in

Obolensky, N. (2010).  Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty.Surrey, England: Gower Publishing.