A633.5.3.RB - Reflections on Chaos

First thing to consider when examining the video is to make sure you understood the directions were.  The video for this week’s module is titled “Who Needs Leaders” and it provides an example of the exercise/game Obolensky (2010) describes in chapter six. The object of this exercise is to examine the importance of leadership, especially during the simplest of task. 

·         One person (not the identified leader of the group) tells each person to pick two reference points (two other people) within the room specifically stating that one cannot indicate whom they have picked.

·         The individual person informs everyone to move around the room until they have equal space between each reference point.

Initially the room is in constant flux.  Everyone is trying to accomplish the simple task given to them.  It takes a little time for everyone in the room to accomplish the objectives.  So as I considered this exercise, I decided to put on my critical thinking cap.  Then, I realized that there are two trains of thought for this exercise. 

The first is the foundation of the exercise.  To create this foundation, you must give a group of individuals a few simple guidelines.  Next, you must give them the freedom to act based on the instructions they received.  The group of individual will soon drift into a chaotic state before they figure out how to accomplish the task.  This is a good example of how bottom up management works in an organization.  In the end, the individuals did figure out how to reach the objectives, however, key skills like clear communication were missing which would have shortened the time for the task to be completed.    

Let’s consider if the chaotic environment have been avoided if there was an assigned leader for the group of individuals. Perhaps, someone could have taken the initiative to take an unassigned leadership role.  I think this was a great example of how you can take a very simple task and complicate it without some form of structured leadership. 

Now my perspective is one of the two sided coin.  Due to the intricacy of the exercise, the number of possible solutions is vast.  As long as the instructions are clear, some would say that the more complicated the task, the easier it is for us to follow.  Even without leadership, this exercise was proof that problems can be solved in many ways as long as the directions are clear.  The completion time may be different, but the task can be completed. 

Having seen similar exercises, I did not doubt whether or not the exercise could be completed.  I was more concerned with the completion time without some form of leadership.  I think it would have been great to do the exercise in sequence (with two different groups; one with and one without leadership presence).  It would have also been interesting to repeat the same exact exercise to examine the learning curve of the group.  I simply assumed that the time would decrease for each exercise.   

I do feel that the exercise was beneficial and informative.  The exercise examined the dynamics of chaos and complexity from two perspectives.  The task showed insight into human nature; this means we, as people, first panic and then thrive when thrown into a new situation.

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Why do you think there is a shift in leadership thinking and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization.  It is well known that there is a massive shift in the global business community.  Businesses of all sizes are being challenged to adapt to both internal and external factors; and their leadership is being challenged to manage these changes and still remain successful.   As we discovered in module one, there are various ways to define organizations. We now use new descriptive terms like polyarchy and complex adaptive systems (CAS) to define an organization.  To add to these factors, we are facing multiple terms of demographics in the workforce.  Today’s leaders now have to understand that today’s workforce is a diverse mix of generations and that each employee comes with their own collective backgrounds and value systems. What worked (leadership styles) decades ago, may not work today.  The ability of leadership to adapt to these pressures is increasingly crucial to an organization’s survival.  I will admit that my original perception of leadership styles was very traditional; however, I have learned that I must change if I plan on being successful as a deciding factor for any organization I represent. 

In my current organization, the leadership style has not changed much from the traditional form of hierarchy.  The government is a not for profit organization so the complex adaptive system and polyarchy are not ideal.  Some of the concepts of the less traditional forms of organizational styles can and should be implemented; however, the entire concept cannot. 

As far as the opening exercise goes, I believe that less than 20 percent of the solutions suggested come from executive leadership; while the majority of all solutions are derived from a mixture between middle management and bottom level supervision.  I am not sure if I agree with other perspectives on the statement that top managers/executives know very little about the day-to-day processes/procedures performed within the organization.  I agree that they may not understand the details of daily operations, and there is a shift that senior leadership depends more on the middle and the bottom to education then details of daily operations. 

List three reasons to support or refute this position.
1. Improvements in Global Wide Technology - Technology has made the world a smaller place; one in which business cultures are more interconnected and interrelated when it comes to business operations.  Think about the daily activities of today’s leader versus twenty years ago.  Leaders at every level must now be attached to some type of computer device; which includes checking emails, surfing the web, or attending a virtual meeting. 

2. Information - Information is more abundant today than it has ever been in history.  Twenty years ago no one really understood the true value of what a computer server, but now it is one of the more important styles of retrieving and storing information.  There are not many large organizations that could sustain its oracle of information while maintaining itself.  To complicate things, social media is now one of the leading sources of information.   

3. Generational Differences- As I stated earlier, leaders have to understand that today’s workforce is a diverse mix of generations that each come with their own collective background and value systems.  Organizational cultures and employee values continue to evolve and reform toward a more independent and diversity-driven society. Leaders must not only understand this shift, they must embrace it is they are to manage it successfully.

If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promotes these types of changes?  In order for leadership dynamics to accommodate and promotes these types of changes, organizational cultures must be willing to accept change and the factors that come with them.  Traditional leadership structures must be able to empower lower levels of management and subordinates.  Communications within the company must flow from all directions.  The decision making process must involve more than just the few at the top of the organizational pyramid. 
 
What are the implications of this strategy? The most important implications of this strategy are survival.  In order for an organization to survive, its leaders must share their goals and visions with all level of employees.  By making sure that everyone has an understanding of the goals of the company, they can all work toward achieving success.  This helps everyone to feel empowered.  Leaders that do not understand that there is a massive shift in the global business community are doomed.  Implementing and accepting change is never easy and never will be; leaders and organizations must be aware of this.  Change must be initiated and supported by all levels within an organization. 

  

A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

Find a company which reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and reflect in your blog what the implications are for you and your present organization (or any organization you are familiar with). Identify what you believe are appropriate actions to move your organization forward.

Module three of this course focused on the movement of the traditional corporate hierarchy.  It started with an understanding of the past (functional silos), to the present model.  We now have a cross-functional matrix, to what Nick Obolensky, author of “Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty” refers to as what future innovative companies will call a Complex Adaptive System (2010). 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.  For this task, I was asked to find a company that reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS).  St. Luke is a small British company that has adapted an aggressive CAS strategy.  Some very prominent business critics have described this company as experiencing a monumental growth spurt.  This little company has the determination of “the little engine that could” when it comes to its goal to reach the global market.

My first thought process was to look at Zappos, a shoe company developed by CEO, Tony Hsieh.  His company has gained the reputation of a work environment that is about people who believe in shoes and the importance of customer service , not about profit; thus blowing away the shoe industry by breaking the mold.  If you research the company and its organizational core values you will see something different; the ten organizational core values never mention profit. 

However, I soon discovered there was a company that more closely reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS).  The company I am referring to is Valve Corp., a videogame maker in Bellevue, Washington.  The company was founded in 1996 by former Microsoft software developers Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington.  Like St Luke’s, the most astonishing aspect of life at Valve Corp is that there are no bosses. In this successful organization, there is no explicit hierarchy.  Employees, at every level, are involved in hiring and firings which can be initiated by something as simple as a conversation between employees.  Here bonuses are based on peer reviews (not management or leadership) and can be as large as 10 times an employee’s base pay.  Now as great as this may sound, it is important to understand that such based spontaneous enterprises rely to a large extent on individuals who actually believe in the social norms that govern their existence. 

This system will not work for my current organization, the federal government for numerous reasons.  Having such a system requires taking a lot of risk.  The federal government is not a profit based organization and cannot operate like a normal everyday business.  Yes, success is measured by achieving set objectives; however, often times the objectives are not tangible.  I do however believe the federal government can learn from the CAS process.  The government could start the process by learning about and implementing better ways to understand all internal and external stakeholders.  Like Zappos, they can learn how to developing a plan to achieve specific financial and budgetary goals (Glassman, 2013).  Last but not least, I feel it is important that the federal government learn that the company culture is something that many corporations take for granted, not realizing how important it actually is to employee morale, work quality, and overall success.

 

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

Glassman, B (2013).  What Zappos Taught Us About Creating The Ultimate Client Experience. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2013/05/13/what-zappos-taught-us-about-creating-the-ultimate-client-experience/

Wagreich, S. (2013). A Billion Dollar Company With No Bosses? Yes, It Exists.  Retrieved from  http://www.inc.com/samuel-wagreich/the-4-billion-company-with-no-bosses.html

A633.2.3.RB - Butterfly Effect

Based on this week's reading, reflect on complexity science and theory in organizations and the butterfly effect (p.66).

Although I was not intellectually drawn in by this week’s reading assignment, I still found the weeks readings somewhat interesting and challenging at the same time.  In the course textbook, Obolensky (2010) it discusses how complex organizations contain common features: Self organization, Inter-relatedness, Adaptive nature, and Emergence.  History has shown that some organizations can become complex beyond their capability, while others fail to embrace such complexity and want to keep the environment as simple as possible.  In my opinion both situations have realistic pros and cons.  One positive attribute of complexity science is an organization understanding the importance of adaptability, when and where they need to adapt to be successful.

The one thing that did stand out to me was when Obolensky (2010) discussed the butterfly effect of which I have always been a fan.  Now, I am not referring to the often overused quote, “If a butterfly flaps its wings on one side of the world, does that cause a hurricane on the other side of the world?”  I think that is a bit of an exaggeration.  I also think that saying or phrase is often misused.  Obolensky (2010) defines the butterfly effect in a very simple way; “small changes” resulting in “large results.”  In order to apply these small changes that the butterfly effect refers to, leaders need to fully understand that any environment can have dynamics that are complex and chaotic.  Obolensky proves several excellent business related examples on page 67and page 68, which painted a very descriptive picture of how it works in the business community. 

 

Identify 2 examples where “small changes yield large results” in your organization

Example one – I have seen and have used the butterfly effect on numerous successful occasions.  Upon retiring from the military, I took a management position in the retail industry.  I learned, in my short time in the retail industry, that sometimes you have to go over and beyond to satisfy some customers, even giving a larger discount on certain items and losing a little money on the transaction.  I once had a customer that seemed a bit overwhelmed.  She needed to purchase an item immediately for her child’s birthday party.  The customer did not realize the cost of the item and did not have the total amount to purchase the item at the time.  I gave her a discount on the item so she could purchase it.  About a month later, she came back and made several large purchases and also told several of her friends about how the store manager assisted her.  This led her friends to come to the store and also make large purchases. 

Example two – While serving as a professor for a university in North Texas, I noticed that the students were very confused about what was requirement for the assigned writing assignments.  So I requested a meeting with the dean and asked her to consider implementing a policy change. It required that all writing assignments provide the student with an example of what the writing objectives are for each writing assignment.  Less than two months later, the overall final grades of the students and the quality of their work increased by a full letter grade. 

 

What are the implication of complexity theory for you and your organization and how can you use this to drive improvements.

 

As simple as it may seem, the implications of complexity theory and impact of the butterfly effect is not an easy to always recognize.  Sometimes, it is even more difficult to identify the overall impact.  The reality is, in some cases the results of the butterfly effect can be great and very positive, but as I demonstrated in my weekly discussion forum input, it can also have a negative effect in organizations. 

 

Reference: Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.