A633.5.3.RB_LarsonKurt, Reflections on Chaos

Play the chaos game with a group of people (see Complex Adaptive Leadership (Obolensky, 2010) Chapter 6, or watch the above video.

Create a reflection blog on what this exercise meant to you and how it impacts your understanding of chaos theory; include the implications that this has on strategy.

The video “Who Needs Leaders” featuring Nick Obolensky facilitating an exercise that was reminiscent of similar exercises I have been part of in my professional and personal life. Is a humorous yet poignant manner of showing the group that with out leaders (official and unofficial) attempting to get a group of individuals to steer in a particular direction is singular to herding cats?

With the previous statement in mind the exercise in the video is reminiscent of the need for an established yet manageable hierarchy of leadership. The following eight principles of Complex Adaptive Leadership are such that the expectation of chaos, indecisiveness or indecisions (individual or group) can be mitigated to the least common denominator. 

Clear individual objective – Will allow each internal and external stakeholder the organizations true reason for existence.

Organizational objectives allow for unit cohesion and seamless execution of mission objectives. 

A few simple rules – Rules that are sufficient in complexity, yet yielding in latitude to allow for situational adaptation, in other words, they do not constrain or restrict innovation, adaptation or creativity.

Organizational rules and policies should enhance the objective, not restrict it.

Continuous feedback – Allows for an ever-present check and balance of a situation, test, and result utilizing Key Performance Parameters as a go-no-go gauge to ascertain if a project, program or mission objective are on target, or how far off the make it may be.

Organizational sender, receiver and feedback loops are crucial for moral, motivation and mission accomplishment. Team members must feel like they positively contributed and small recognitions are paramount.

Discretion and freedom of action – True professional organizations allow for autonomy of their employees and in certain cases, trusted contractors and vendors to go forth and complete their particular task, job or test in a prescribed manner because an open and affirming organizational culture enhances personal attitudes and innovation.

Skill/will of participants – There is a saying: “Train people well enough so they can leave, treat them well enough so they don’t want to” – Richard Branson.

Much like discussed in Obolensky (2010,) individuals are typically more skilled and motivated than leadership and management would give credit for. The underlying reasons for this can be endless… the bottom line is that if individuals are unable to reach their full potential they will either regress or leave. Knowledge transfer and career development are crucial to an organizations forward momentum through innovation and risk taking. 

Underlying purpose – An underlining purpose is the glue that unites individuals into teams, fosters innovation and creative thinking. It is the reason we long to come to work in the morning or loathe it.

Without an underlining purpose and organization would quickly loose its purpose of being and flounder down the slippery slope of ambiguity. 

Clear boundary - Gives boundaries, definition and the ability to look at the organizational make-up from the internal stakeholders and customers to the external ones. Reaching across boundaries and into unchartered waters is the strategy that can make or break and organization. It is the hierarchy by which we gain support for innovative ideas, projects and emerging technologies.

An organization that is destine to a hierarchical type of boundaries. This allows for defined lines of structure, which allows for innovation, planning, deployment and execution of product and services.      

Ambiguity and uncertainty – Much like an unknown condition or circumstance, the appearance of chaos or a lack of equilibrium are the underlying conditions that can grind to a halt a project, program, product or service. There is an inherent need for a certain span of control for simplicity’s sake and as a method from which to gauge success.

Organizationally without the yin/yang of organizational hierarchies, there never would be trial end error or advancements due to risk taking or challenges.

An example that comes to mind is how a flock of geese fly in a “V” shaped pattern. If you were able to follow them long enough you would see that occasionally, the leader drops to the back of the flock and another takes it place. The rational is simply to give rest to the leader and to allow others the opportunity to lead in a prescribed manner so no one goose is overburdened and the leadership role is distributed among the flock.

Another example that is close to yours truly are continuous work/life requirements coupled with the necessities of academic life added to the mix. As this is my final “official” course requirement, there is a portion of me that would prefer completing my Capstone, yet another portion that is thankful it is unavailable until August. In my own prescribed manner this is similar to a flock of geese whereby I am moving to the back of the flock for a short time allowing my academic batteries to regenerate, allowing me to return in the fall ready, willing and able to tackle and complete the Capstone with the fervor and zest that I completed my Grad and Undergrad work. 

In the last sentence of the video Nick Obolensky stated, "What would have happened if we had put one of you in charge?" Everyone laughs as they realize if that had happened they would not have been able to achieve the objective”. Although humorous in nature, it does have a certain truth to the exercise in that Obolensky in facilitating the exercise could have called upon an individual or individuals to lead the exercise. The point being… how many of us are truly ready, willing, able and mentally prepared to take the lead of our own flock of geese?

Reference:

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Limited. DOI: www.gowerpublishing.com

  

A633.4.3.RB_LarsonKurt, Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Reflecting on the opening exercise at the beginning of Chapter 4 of the of Obolensky text and other readings, why do you think the shift in leadership is occurring and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization.  List three reasons that support or refute this position.

If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promote these types of changes?  What are the implications on strategy?

It would appear that as discussed in Obolensky (2010,) of sweeping changes to organizational strategies that were accomplished through graduated stair-step change patterns. The truly successful organizations were those that implemented positive and productive change management over a period of two to five years. Simply put this could be attributed to cultural, logistical, economic, geographically dislocation of sub-elements of an organization that may be spread out in varying countries under varying cultural and economic conditions. For example, an organization like General Electric, which has 13 offshore business units, would need to accommodate the economic, cultural, labor including import and export laws of 13 different yet distinct countries.

There are leaders of businesses who track milestones in monthly and quarterly increments. Jeff Immelt, General Electrics CEO, thinks in terms of decades (Bradt, 2011.) Jeff, recently marking his 10-year anniversary as CEO of GE in a time when 40 percent of new leaders fail in 18 months, CEO’s simply surviving a decade is nothing more than a pipe dream. There has been a lot written regarding what Jeff and GE have accomplished to date. Reuters, Fortune and The wall Street Journal have all tracked successes and failures in the last decade (Bradt, 2011.) Jeff Immelt will be forever compared to former CEO Jack Welch. Immelt is quick to say he wants to be remembered not for the first decade behind the wheel, or the subsequent ones after that… but rather, for his lasting contributions over the long haul (Bradt, 2011.)

Immelt attributes GE’s success to three priorities, strategy, culture and lastly people. Immelt see’s himself and his main priority to pick initiatives and businesses and get involved shaping the company and culture only after picking the right and great people for the job (Bradt, 2011.)

This said and by default of the economy of scales the management of any large global organization would need to defer much of its responsibilities to those who are capable of carrying out the solutions, strategic plans and check and balances of the parent organization. This naturally would need to fall to those best suited in carrying out the specific tasks and are listed below.

In my organization and particularly the USG in general are in need of “doing more with less”. This has been occurring for well over a decade now, and if an organization wants to survive, grow and remain as a benefit to the US taxpayer the talent and experience simply must come from inside.

Much of the talent, experience and second hand knowledge in today’s governmental agencies comes from retired and former military. The expertise, discipline and willingness to see a project to its completion are the product of the American GI. It would be fool hearty to hire or pay an outside organization for tribal knowledge, experience and credentials that have been already been paid for through the utilization of American Solders, Sailors, Airmen and Marines.

To put credit where credit is due it would also be beneficial to know when to consult with outside expertise such as defense contractors. Many governmental organizations capitalize upon that expertise along with the existent internal expertise of retired and former military in joint-ventures whereby capitalizing upon best commercial practices and the best methods of implementing those changes, upgrades and innovations to existing commodities through the use of military and contractor interfaces.

The leadership dynamics would need to be accommodating to the fact that for every dollar saved it may lengthen the overall process via contractor to USG/military forming, storming, norming and preforming type of interactions as a method of establishing a level and manageable playing field for all concerned. Management and leadership would also need to be cognizant of the fact that because these joint-venture projects are driven by best commercial practices, tribal knowledge and expertise and not by managerial or top leadership, the milestones, timelines or outcomes may not be as predicted or desired. They will however be a manageable and usable alternative with inherent trade-offs as a negotiated savings to the taxpayer investment.         

References:

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Limited. DOI: www.gowerpublishing.com

Bradt, G. (2011). Ge ceo jeff immelt's long-term view 10 years in. Forbes.com, 2. Retrieved from http://www.fobes.com

A633.3.3.RB_LarsonKurt, Complex Adaptive Systems

Complex Adaptive System (CAS) is described in Obolensky (2010,) as a dynamic organization from which teams are formed, performed and terminate as needed. The true cornerstones that form the foundation of which people, processes and policies including relevant and adaptive information, communication systems that are transparent, inclusive with a flexible developmental strategy process.

Morning Star and St. Luke are two organizations that share similar Complex Adaptive System (CAS) business strategies.

In the United States Morning Star, Inc. is heralded as one of the largest tomato processing organizations in the world. The success strategy that Morning Star subscribes is to allow employee self-empowerment, self-management including personalized mission statements. The organization is considered to a very unusually operated company due to the methods of allowing freedom of its employees to seek new challenges with an acceptance of ever increasing roles and responsibilities.

St. Luke is an organization located in the United Kingdom that boasts 115 employees in an open informational type sharing in a formal and decentralized manner. The dynamics of meeting the needs of the stakeholder vs. operating the company lends to its unusual business model. 

Health Care as a Complex Adaptive System is a business model, which requires leadership rather than power, incentives and inhibitions rather than command and control. Since many individuals think of “systems” as exemplars that range from processing plants, utilities and enterprises and the improvement of a system through decomposition of performance and management into component elements and subsequently recomposing through integration and design solutions for each element.

Not all system redesigns and management problems in the health care world can be solved by hierarchical decomposition.

By comparison Complex adaptive systems can be defined in terms of the following characteristics (Rouse, 2000):

They are nonlinear and dynamic and do not inherently reach fixed-equilibrium points. As a result, system behaviors may appear to be random or chaotic.

They are composed of independent agents whose behavior is based on physical, psychological, or social rules rather than the demands of system dynamics.

Because agents’ needs or desires, reflected in their rules, are not homogeneous, their goals and behaviors are likely to conflict. In response to these conflicts or competitions, agents tend to adapt to each other’s behaviors.

Agents are intelligent. As they experiment and gain experience, agents learn and change their behaviors accordingly. Thus overall system behavior inherently changes over time.

Adaptation and learning tend to result in self-organization. Behavior patterns emerge rather than being designed into the system. The nature of emergent behaviors may range from valuable innovations to unfortunate accidents.

There is no single point(s) of control. System behaviors are often unpredictable and uncontrollable, and no one is “in charge.” Consequently, the behaviors of complex adaptive systems can usually be more easily influenced than controlled.

References:

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Limited. DOI: www.gowerpublishing.com

Rouse, W.B. 2000. Managing complexity: disease control as a complex adaptive system. Information • Knowledge • Systems Management 2(2): 143–165.