A633.5.3.RB_HansardCarey

The complexity exercise this week was fascinating to watch in practice. The video clearly demonstrates that with a clear goal and little direction from a leader, people can make amazing progress toward accomplishing a goal by using their own skills and intuition. At the end of the video he asks the group what would have happened if there was someone who had been appointed in charge of making everyone go where they were supposed to. In my mind, it certainly would have been a much lengthier and more involved project. Any time you have one person trying to manipulate the actions of many others, there will be a lot of confusion by those following directions and stress by those giving them. It reminds me a lot of teaching school. When I wanted my students to research a specific topic and create a project, I gave some basic directions and allowed them to complete the assignment on their own. The variety of ideas that comes out of this strategy leads to more creativity. It is time consuming to direct every activity involved in realizing a vision. Students understood the basic task and were able to accomplish that task in many different ways.

As demonstrated in the video, once people receive the direction, they take time to process what they are supposed to do before they move. Once that happens, they quickly determine in their own minds how they are going to accomplish the goal. It does not mater what others do because everyone adapts as necessary to the quickly changing environment. Words were not necessary as individuals used other skills to determine what the necessary actions were on their part. They relied on one another to provide clues to their next steps. It wasn’t always pretty, but in the end, only small adjustments were necessary by a few people before the goal had been accomplished. If the director had continued to provide direction, he would have had to waste time asking everyone who they had chosen as reference points, arrange people while talking over and around everyone, and finally, walk around making sure that everyone is actually where he wants them to be. These activities are reminiscent of what a micromanager does.

I would love to be able to watch this play out in my own department. To a certain extent we have independence but management tends to want to babysit along the way. This exercise could go a long way toward demonstrating that people can and do find their way on their own with minimal instruction. I also think this is important for employees to see. Some who may not have confidence in their skills as a leader are sure to feel a renewed sense of faith that they can do it.

Strategically, the exercise illustrated that employees in a complex situation do not necessarily need more leadership. In fact, leaders play a minimal role while employees are working much more efficiently and effectively.  Strategy needs to include input from all stakeholders from the beginning all the way through to the end. Giving people in the organization the ability to lead themselves and each other will be motivating.

Reference: Obolensky, N. (Performer). (2008, April 08). Who needs leaders? [Web Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E

A633.4.3.RB_HansardCarey

The shift in leadership that Obolensky (2010) describes refers to leadership becoming more spread out in the organization to include employees, commonly called bottom up leadership (p. 35). In my organization, I believe this happens to a certain extent. Employees are asked by their leaders what their opinions are about pressing issues and what possible solutions look like. However, it is still ultimately up to management how issues are handled and whether decisions made at lower levels are acceptable and effective. According to Bill Hampton, Executive Director of marketing and Student Retention for ERAU Worldwide, the attitude of leadership in general has been shifting to empowering employees to make decisions and come up with solutions to problems that plague them. This does not mean that bottom up leadership is occurring the way Obolensky (2010) describes it.

In order for this to occur, Obolensky (2010) says that leaders must be willing to admit that they do not know the answers to all of the questions and be willing to open dialogues with those who know (p. 36). Do I see this happening? Not really. From my point of view, the hierarchy continues to grow instead of diminish and leaders are still not at a point where they are willing to relinquish the decision-making control they have.

The idea of forming cross-functional teams is one that has been successful in bottom up leadership (Jurkowitz, 1998, p.1). Cross-functional teams are given the ability to form ideas and come up with solutions for the organization. The fact that many different stakeholders are involved in this process, in my opinion, makes the decisions more sound and easily adopted by others since they had a say in the final decisions. In my organization, although we may occasionally work with another team on a project, we do not have cross-functional teams consistently working together. These cross-functional teams have to be allowed the freedom to make decisions and come up with solutions. These teams allow employees to learn about different aspects of the organization and transparency begins to emerge within the organization.

In addition, for bottom up leadership to work, employees need to have the desire to make the organization better and ideas to make it happen to have a significant impact on management (McCrimmon, p.1). McCrimmon mentions that employees can be seen as leaders this way without being in charge. This article had a real impact on me. When I have thought about the term leadership in the past, I usually associate the term with a manger of people. However, they are not synonymous. People who show initiative and pioneer a cause are leaders no matter where they are in the organization. A bottom up style of leadership demonstrates this concept well.

The implication on strategy would be that employees can now feel as though they are a real part of making the vision happen. Employees would have the chance to broach new ideas that align with the company’s strategy. The strategy itself would not have to change but how it is achieved would. Managers would no longer assign tasks related to the strategy to employees but rather they would seek out opinions from them as to how the strategy or vision could be realized.

Seems like a winning proposition to me. Everyone likes to feel valued and by making them a part of the process, that goal can be achieved.

Jurkowitz, M. (1998, Feb 18). Bottom-up newspaper leadership. Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/403928365?accountid=27203

McCrimmon, M. (n.d.). Bottom-up leadership. Retrieved from http://www.leadersdirect.com/bottom-up-leadership

Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex adaptive leadership. (1st edition.). London, UK: Gower/Ashgate

A633.3.3.RB_HansardCarey

According to Keith Yamashita and Sandra Spataro, in a complex adaptive system, chaos is essential so that the organization can adapt and therefore, survive. Actions within the organization do not take place because of planning but rather because the organization is evolving to meet the changing needs of those involved. Changes do not have to be huge to make a big difference in the organization. Feedback is also an important aspect of a complex adaptive system as it comes from all sides and allows adaptation to occur based on comments made.

As a leader, it seems as though establishing a truly complex adaptive system would be very difficult. Aspects of this system currently exist in my organization but I believe that we are actually in some type of transitional state. For example, upper level management recently instated 360 degree feedback. Other members of the team, however, were not included in that initiative.  To some extent, employees are also responsible for certain initiatives and running projects; however, there is always oversight by management, making what Obolensky  (2010) refers to as a mix of top down and bottom up (p. 30). Leaders within the organization believe that employees have more say in strategic planning than employees believe they have. This insight should help leaders adapt their leadership style to make their assumptions but, as of this point, this has not happened. For this reason, employees may not be fully invested in the strategies coming form the top. Obolensky (2010) states that people need to be involved in the formulation of strategy to expect a high degree of understanding (p. 30). If followers do not feel as though they have been included in strategic planning, and they do not necessarily understand the strategy or reasons for it, they are less likely to be actively involved in its implementation.

The most difficult aspect for making the transition to a CAS is reducing the hierarchy that generally appears within an organization. I am sure that there are not many CEOs willing to give up their corner offices and leave the strategizing to others.

As for moving forward, I do not believe that my organization will ever truly become a CAS. As a matter of fact, I see the opposite occurring. There are more levels of management being added all the time. For example, we have people within the organization with the titles of executive director, director, associate director and, in some areas, managers. This, in my opinion, makes those who work without a management level title feel further removed from upper level management, meaning that their ideas never come to the table or they believe that their opinions don’t matter. One of the things that I like about the idea of a CAS is that those who do the work and best understand the processes and needs of the customers are making decisions. They are also able to constantly provide feedback to others involved in project as a means of self-policing. According to Obolensky (2010), individuals not rising to the occasion are quickly identified and eliminated, making way for more productive individuals (p. 27). In my opinion, this would be a highly motivating factor to do a great job and be productive in my role.

Although I do not really feel as though I understand how to transition a traditional business model into a CAS, there are aspects of the CAS that appeal to me and hope to be able to include when I am a leader.

Obolensky, N. (2012). Complex adaptive leadership, embracing paradox and uncertainty. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

Yamashita, K., & Spataro, S. (n.d.). Unstuck: A tool for yourself, your team, and your world. Retrieved from http://www.exinfm.com/board/complex_adaptive_systems.htm

A633.2.3.RB_HansardCarey

The butterfly effect, according to Obolensky (2012), demonstrates that, “ a very small change within a complex system can produce a very large difference to what would have otherwise happened” (p. 66). This effect can be observed in many organizations.

My first example does not reference my current employer, but it is something that I noticed as a trend recently at several different places I have visited, indicating that the idea is working. Recently, I visited the Plant City Strawberry Festival here in Florida and noticed that there was an attendant in the restroom. She was doing several things. I’m sure you have never personally experienced the line for the women’s restroom but possibly a companion you had to wait on has. It can be frustrating and time-consuming because lines are generally long, it is hard to tell if a stall is occupied, some are out of toilet paper, others are non-operational, and the restroom itself is usually a mess. The attendant was able to solve many of these problems. She was able to direct women to open stalls ensuring that the line kept moving, clean throughout the day to minimize litter, and guarantee that supplies were restocked as needed. I mentioned this to my husband who said that Daytona International Speedway had also adopted this policy in their restrooms for the Daytona 500 and that the difference in cleanliness was amazing. Last week, we attended a show at our local theater where there were also attendants in the restrooms. This small change has greatly benefited customers, employees, and organizations. Customers appreciate a well-maintained and clean restroom. Employers benefit because people are less likely to do things that cost the company money, like clog the toilets or steal supplies from the restroom, if there is an attendant there. For employees, they are able to earn money from the business as well as taking home tips from appreciative customers.

Another example of the ripple effect (or butterfly effect) within my organization was the upgrade of EagleVision a couple of weeks ago. When the vendor, Saba, announced the upgrade, we decided that we would no longer support the desktop client but instead, would switch to the browser version. This announcement caused many unexpected results. We have used this upgrade as a catalyst for making changes to the website, the way we train, and the documentation. We were able to get rid of outdated and duplicated support materials. We are also reevaluating the way we train and are looking to make changes to how we conduct the sessions. Another result of this decision for training is that we were able to secure funding for a third trainer. Although it has been a chaotic time, some great ideas and collaborative relationships have emerged during the process.

In addition to the butterfly effect, I also see connections to the Buttons and Threads Experiment detailed by Obolensky (2012, p. 79). Several times, seemingly unrelated conversations suddenly seem to intertwine creating moments of insight and clarity.

    

Reference: Obolensky, N. (2012). Complex adaptive leadership, embracing paradox and uncertainty. Gower Publishing Company.