A633.5.3.RB - Reflections on Chaos

Who Needs Leaders

Duration: (3:32 min.)

Source: YouTube

             Obolensky's video "Who Needs Leaders"(2008) illustrates a fun game that shows how chaos dynamics and complexity theory works. It shows how self-organization can get better results than leader directed organization within a complex task ("Who Needs Leaders", 2008). Obolensky (2014) discussed how organizations are becoming more complex and are operating in contexts more fluid than ever before. The exercise involved twenty-five men and women who are asked to pick two unidentified people in the room, and place themselves equal distant between the two references. Once the instructions were provide each participant had to decide how they would execute the instructions. It was amazing to see that it only took them 1minute to accomplish a rather interesting yet challenging task. Most of those who participate in the simulation initially feel it was impossible, and were surprised by the outcome.

 

              This was an amazing example of how leaders can take complex problems and simplify them with a few simple clear rules and objectives where everyone can understand the expectations and the goal. According to Obolensky (2014), there are 8 key principles that can help organizations, particularly individuals complete complex tasks successfully. The eight principles are: clear individual objective, a few simple rules, clear boundary, continuous feedback, skill/will of participants, discretion and freedom of action, underlying purpose, and ambiguity & uncertainty (Obolensky, 2014). The exercise in the video portrayed Obolensky’s 8 principles and how it might work in an organization. The biggest emphasis in utilizing the 8 principles (2014), is that every organization will find their own unique way of expressing them, which in part reflects the 'dynamic' aspect of the principles (p. 125). These 8 principles are further elaborate below:

• Clear individual objective- according to Obolensky (2014) each person has a very clear idea of what they are trying to achieve. 
• A few simple rules- the rules are sufficient to enable effective action, and enough to keep the system from descending into too much chaos Obolensky (2014).
• Continuous feedback- Obolensky (2014) suggests that every individual knows at any time where they are in relationship to achieving their objective.
• Discretion and freedom of action- each person can act without needing permission; this requires an organizational culture that allows risk taking and initiative (Obolensky, 2014).
• Skill/will of participants- each person has the skill and the will to achieve the objective Obolensky (2014).
• Underlying purpose- The organization clearly states their purpose and have a purpose to bring everyone together.
• Clear boundary- the boundary gives a definition where the action is (Obolensky, 2014).
• Ambiguity and uncertainty. According to Obolensky (2014) ambiguity and uncertainty should be embraced rather than avoided. By implementing controls and guidelines we can minimize uncertainty.

This exercise was eye opening and showed how leaders don’t always have to be in control. At the end of the exercise the mediator asked, “What would have happened if we had put one of you in charge?” The group laughs; because they understand how hard it would have been if someone was telling them what to do all the time. This proves that leaders can learn to let go and trust in their subordinate to accomplish the tasking.

 

References:

 

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty. Surry, England: Gower Publishing limited

 

Obolensky, N. (2008). Who Needs Leaders. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

According to Webster dictionary (2016), change is the ability to give a different position, course, or direction. In contrast, organizational change is the process companies or organization goes through when in a progression of transformational change (Organization change, 2016). Change cannot be stopped and organizations need to be ready to adapt to the changing environments. Leadership within organizations has drastically changed and will continue to change over the years for several reasons. First, Globalization and the Internet changed everything. Suddenly customers had real choices, and access to instant reliable information, and the ability to communicate with each other (Denning, 2013). Second, the complexity with organizational structure and their strategy is often seen as obstacles when dealing with change.  This why many managers that lead their organization are more stressed, challenged, and confused today more than they have ever been before (Obolensky, 2014, p. 37). Finally, some leadership styles like the command and control style, which is the most common leadership style, and does not work for transformational change, yet most leaders and organizations rely exclusively on it (Denning, 2013). The problem arises when individuals are resistant to change and leaders don’t invest the development of their subordinates. Change occurs from the top down and upper management need to lead by example, in contrast lower level of the organization need to be receptive to change. As Obolensky notes, “subordinates need to challenge in order to follow, and superiors must listen in order to lead” (2014, p.38). It’s important to have a clear line of communication between leaders and subordinate in order to adapt to the changing environment. Additionally, leaders need to understand that it takes time to change such behavior and is not done by dictating (Obolensky, 2010).

A great example of an organization that embraces change is Apple. Apple meets the diverse needs of hundreds of millions of individual iPhone users by launching its own ecosystem—a technology platform that enables hundreds of thousands of developers to create Apps that can meet every conceivable human need and to offer them directly to customers (Denning, 2013). This technology grew with the changing time and continues to be ahead of the times, allowing Apple to work more innovative products.

The military is another organization that has seen tremendous change. I’ve been in the Navy for 13 years and I’ve already got the development and integration of the F/A 18 Super Hornet and the F-35C Lightning II. Also the US military coped with asymmetric warfare against elusive terrorists through ”mission command”, an approach built on decentralization, spontaneity, informality, loose rein, self-discipline and initiative. It draws on ability from all echelons. Its communications are multi-directional interactions, not just top-down directives (Denning, 2013). In my opinion the military is adapting well to the demand of change; however, with new budget constraint and duty limitation it has made it difficult to implement change.

Hyatt (n.d.) said, “If you are happy with the status quo, you don’t need a leader. But the moment you want something to change—to shift—that’s when you need to bring in a leader.” I think this quote says it best, as it states, “many organizations feel comfortable in their current situation and miss out on the opportunity to change.” An example is Blockbuster and how it failed to adapt when Netflix was dominating the streaming market. Also, how Kodak didn’t change its technology to meet the demand of the 21th century and up almost in ruins. If the organization does not keep with the changing technology, consumer demands, and effective business processes, they will lose their competitive edge. I believe change starts with the leadership and trickles down to the lower lever. If strategy planning is not properly enforced and communicates to subordinate then there might be hesitance toward change so proper planning and execution is imperative.

Reference:

Hyatt, M. (n.d.). Shift: The Essence of Leadership. Retrieved February 06, 2016, from http://michaelhyatt.com/shift-the-essence-of-leadership.html

Change. (n.d.). Retrieved February 6, 2016, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change

Denning, S. (2013, May 30). The Management Revolution That's Already Happening. Retrieved February 06, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/05/30/the-management-revolution-thats-already-happening/#6d092d673d6e

Organization change. BusinessDictionary.com. Retrieved February 06, 2016, from BusinessDictionary.com website: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organization-change.html

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.