Thursday, August 3, 2017

A633.5.3.RB_BrianneGowens_Reflections on Chaos

In the Chaos Theory video led by Obolensky, a large group of people are asked to randomly select two other people in the room, but not indicate which two people they chose. Then, they are instructed to place their own bodies an equal distance away from the two people they chose by walking around and reorganizing their place in the room. Again, this activity had to take place without anyone in the group revealing who they’d picked. Upon hearing their task, the individuals in the room snickered, quietly predicting the chaos that was about to ensue. When the instructor gave them the “ok,” to go, individuals began to slowly move in all different directions. Everyone knew what they needed to accomplish, but their movement appeared to be confused and unpredictable. As the chaos began, I couldn’t help but wonder how long they’d wander around before finally giving up. And then, suddenly, 75% of the people stopped moving, followed closely by 90%. Within less than one minute, everyone was settled, and the experiment appeared to be successfully over. Obolensky looked a bit surprised for a moment and I couldn’t help but think “uh oh, this went way better than expected and Obolensky is unable to prove his point about how difficult it is for people to find their way when they don’t have clear direction!” Instead, Obolensky said “now, what would of happened if I’d put one of you in charge?” The crowd laughed and the point of the exercise was instantly clear. Sometimes, instead of helping team members cut through the complexity of organizational issues, the involvement of leaders can actually make things worse.

Obolensky’s (2014) chaos theory says that, “chaos has an underlying order and patterns which can be used to good effect” (Obolensky, 2014). Chaotic business situations might include inside disruptors like intense competitive pressures, forced layoffs, unbalanced age and/or gender dynamics. They might also include outside disruptors like political, environmental, or economic disarray. Yet, through all of that chaos and confusion, “complex systems seem to organize themselves” in a way that actually makes sense (Berreby, 1996). The point in Obolensky’s video is clear. Sometimes leaders play an integral role in this process, but many other times they hinder it.

Managers and leaders are often trained to believe that their main objective is to eliminate chaos and complexity from the organization by providing strong direction to their individual teams. Obolensky (2014) argued, however, that “the more complex things are, the less traditional leadership one needs” (p. 101). Instead, organizational problems can be solved by leaders who provide clear individual objectives, simple rules, continuous feedback, and the freedom to act, and then stand back and let the team figure things out on their own (Obolesnsky, 2014). When combined, these actions help foster teams that have both the freedom and the will to act in the best interest of the organization.

The truth is that traditional leaders are fading from the business landscape as today’s economy becomes more dynamic. Traditional leaders withhold information, conduct annual performance reviews, and generally believe that authority gives them power (Jartese, 2013). Complex adaptive leaders, on the other hand, openly share knowledge, provide continuous feedback, and believe that power is generated as a result of teamwork (Jartese, 2013). Traditional leaders are fading, but complex adaptive leaders are rapidly filling their vacancies.

All of this change on leadership theory has a significant impact on strategy because it is changing the way strategies are developed. Historically, it has been the leaders of the company who were responsible for generating and communicating the organizational strategy. “The traditional view is that those at the top formulate strategy and direct those below – the top propose, the bottom dispose” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 29). With a shift towards complex adaptive leadership however, development of strategy has become much more of a team sport. According to Obolensky, “As the organization moves from a fixed functional/hierarchic model to a more fluid and organic one, so too will strategy evolve in a different way” (p. 29). Complex adaptive leaders engage people throughout all levels of the organization in order to secure an organizational strategy that is poised to deliver the best chances of long-term success.

Strategies are also becoming more emergent as complexity increases. Mintzberg’s emergent strategy is “on the upswing” because it includes a view that generation of strategy is not a deliberate action, but something that naturally emerges over time as people and businesses adapt to changing realities (Moore, 2011). Porter’s five forces and his deliberate view on strategy has been dominate for many years, but emergent strategy is gaining popularity because it takes into account the fact that our strategies may sometimes fail as a result of this unpredictable world we live in (Moore, 2011). Obolensky’s exercise was the perfect example of what can happen when leaders step back from the chaos, create a perimeter of support, and then watch as the organization overcomes its greatest complexities.

Resources

Berreby, D. (1996). Between Chaos and Order: What Complexity Theory Can Teach Business. Strategy + Business. Retrieved from https://www.strategy-business.com/article/15099?gko=73fbc

Chaos Theory [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnlkKdDXk-I

Jartese. (2013). 8 Differences Between Traditional and Collaborative Leaders. Innocentive. Retrieved from https://blog.innocentive.com/2013/11/21/8-differences-between-traditional-and-collaborative-leaders

Moore, K. (2011, March 28). Porter or Mintzberg: Whose View of Strategy Is the Most Relevant Today? Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/karlmoore/2011/03/28/porter-or-mintzberg-whose-view-of-strategy-is-the-most-relevant-today/ (Links to an external site.)


Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). New York, New York: Gower Publishing.

Obolensky, N. (2008, April 12). Who needs leaders? [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E&feature=youtu.be



No comments:

Post a Comment