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