A633.5.3.RB_Reflections on Chaos_Wathe_Reece_Sandra

A633.5.3.RB_Reflections on Chaos_Wathen Reece Sandra

Based on the chaos game video, create a 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.

This video represents a real life example of what Obolensky also described in his book called Complex Adaptive Leadership in which it indicates how complexity and chaos can work and that there is an underlying order of complexity and simplicity.  This video provides a real-life example that complexity and or chaos can be simple.  As Obolesky (2010) describes it, "the more complex things are, the less traditional leadership one needs". 

The other interesting thing is that you only need a few simple basic rules to accomplish a task.   Some things are just too complex to manage in the traditional style of leadership.  It may often be deemed better not to have too much oversight in that it can cause even more chaos or adverse impacts. 

Being that the world has become so complex, there is a need to use less traditional leadership practices and concentrate on understanding and engaging with at least 8 indentified principles necessary for ensuring that the organization can manage complexity.  8 key principles that Obolensky recognizes - 5 are considered more obvious of the eight which are: Clear Individual Objectives; A Few Simple Rules; Continuous Feedback; Discretion and Freedom of Action; and Skill/Will of Participants. The other 3 less obvious of the 8 key principles are: Underlying Purpose; Clear Boundary; A Tolerance of the Players for Uncertainty and Ambiguity.

Defined strategy by Obolenksy is that it "can be seen as defining what is delivered to whom and how it is delivered.  In many ways once this is clear then self-organization can operate".  The implications it has on strategy is that it has created a broader and wider boundary; allowing larger participants of strategy within the organization - not just those at the top.  Mass intervention techniques are often used to permit larger number of people to be part of evolving strategies.  Basically, what this means is that strategy is open to most of the members of the organization and not limited to an elite few.

In comparison, the example by Obolenksy of Larry Hirschhorn and Thomas Gilore of Whartorn stated: "As organizations become more flexible, the boundaries that matter are in the minds of managers and employees...The traditional organizational map describes a world that no longer exists."

This is continued with the statement that they propose that the "new" organizational boundaries which need to be managed are the Authority boundary; the Task boundary; the Political boundary and the Identity boundaries.  The boundaries are interactive in nature and are not meant to stand-alone.

Then to add the dynamics of the four +four principles which really means to ensure that power is viewed from a totality perspective vice all of the parts and the relationship of those to the whole.  It is a way to represent the importance of consistency, reinforcing nature, need for balanced relationship/interdependencies of the principles while concurrently providing clear objectives, boundaries, rules and feedback with the goal of the organization to find its own innovative way to apply them.

So as to try and interpret this information, it is coming to realization that as our world becomes more complex, the meaning and power of these boundaries from when we once knew them also take a stronger form.  These are the ways in which we must embrace paradox and uncertainty as we move toward finding ways to manage in this world of complex adaptive leadership.

Obolensky, N. (2010); Chapter's 6 & 7. Complex Adaptive Leadership. Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Grower Publishing Company, Surrey, England

Obolensky, N (2008); Nick Obolensky presents "Who needs leaders?".  A 3.32 minute UTube; Uploaded April 12, 2008.

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Reflecting on the opening exercise at the beginning of Chapter 4 of the 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?

A dramatic shift in leadership is occurring and is due to the transition from oligarchy to polyarchy which is causing a shift in leadership approach.  Like any transition there are bumps in the road, learning curves and the need for change in mind-sets, embracing uncertainty, being authentic ; but most of all it takes time and very open-minded leadership.  It is all about transitioning ourselves to be humbled, think differently, and be honest when we tread on areas of uncertainty.  Oh, and let's not forget it requires an attitude change.

In comparison of the company I am employed with respect to this shift in leadership it is quite confusing and is still being analyzed.  I have been trying to determine at what stage our company is in with respect to oligarchy and polyarchy, or, even if it is at all.  If it is in transition, it is in its infancy state or possible initial emergence.  It is still a very top heavy, centralized organization operating with the mentality of that solutions come from the top.   Every once in a while, you will see or feel a glimpse of polyarchy - but it seems to go right back into hiding.

There are very little signs of polyarchy.  Not many questions get asked down for answers to flow upward.  Not very often will the top indicate that they do not know the answer; rather they will continue to move forward applying oligarchic approach rather than admit they do not know. 

I do believe it can be applied and work rather effectively; however, it must be embraced by the CEO and senior leadership and they are the ones’ that are the worst offenders.  The company needs to take steps to encourage and develop good followership among their employees, to include redefining followership and leadership roles as equal, but different activities and to do so by training and by example.

So what this means is that it takes time and patience to break the charade; plus perseverance.  Although, changing leadership mind-set is one of the biggest challenges.  Leaders lose creditability with the people over time if they do not show that they are authentic and that they do what they say they will do, that they are not just a figure head; but someone that will make a difference.

In essence, it is not really about altering leadership dynamics to accommodate and promote these type changes; rather, it is about understanding and embracement of the modern approach to leadership.  Things are changing, therefore we must adapt.  Another important thing to remember is that the key rule is honesty over bluffing.  It is about using uncertainty in a positive way and understanding that honesty gets better results.  It is about using a high degree of finesse that is required with approach and that this can be an effective method for breaking the charade.  And lastly, it is important to use an honest approach that generates good dialogue for fielding questions and be sincere about finding the answers.

The implications of not emerging and adapting to the modern approach to leadership is possible death to the company.  At a minimun, it stifles the company and minimizes the ability to optimize on creativity, innovation, self-worth and empowerment.  It continues to allow leaders to live in an artificial world today by living and operating in the past.

A633.3.3.RB_Complex Adaptive Systems_Reece_Wathen_Sandra

A633.3.3.RB_Complex Adaptive Systems_Reece_Wathen_Sandra

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). Add your insights from your interview of the company executive responsible for strategy formulation in your company. Identify what you believe are appropriate actions to move your organization forward.

 

First, let's take a quick look at two Complex Adaptive System (CAS) type companies; St. Luke and Morning Star.  Both of these companies share very similar business strategies.

St. Luke which is a 115 employee strong company in the United Kingdom (UK) is based on open information sharing; informal hierarchy for the most part, and what is formal is rather decentralized , very dynamic with focus on meeting the stakeholder needs than focusing on running the company

St. Luke has a corporate culture that is focused on personal responsibility and accountable; extremely important with high performance expectations.   This is a company that has no bosses and owned by the employees, as well as, a low turnover rate.  They work hard to find talent and are often seen as a very hard company to get employed with. There corporate goals were to be revolutionized and strategies for employee ownership, innovation and collaboration and have the competitive advantage.  They are very determined not to be a stove piped organization, but more diverse with the company skill base and encourage workers to be cross-functional.     St. Luke's puts extra emphasis on importance of recording successes as well as failures as it is an important tool for envisioning the future.  They have a name brand of their own that has fostered a creative company.

More specifically in the Harvard Business Reviews it is one of the fastest growing companies in the UK.  Diane Coutu describes  the success of St. Luke's as being "driven by the firm's determination to continuously reinvent itself in a world populated by dotcoms and mega-ad agencies".  Their goal is to revolutionize the way business is done.  St. Luke's pursues its goal by carefully managing a paradox and does this by encouraging employees to take risks, yet it still provides a safe feeling environment for employees.  In summary, this company is taking full advantage of living in a time that allows for open creativity.

In comparison, Morning Star, Inc. is one of the world's largest tomato processing companies in the United States and the company is very profitable in that it funds its own internal sources.  It is considered a very unusual company because of how it is managed.    

Morning Star, Inc. recognizes that there is a high cost to the business as a result of unnecessary hierarchy at the management level.  Their strategy is to allow the employees to be empowered, self-managed and have their own personal mission statement that defines what they will do for the company to help meet its goals.  They believe in allowing their people freedom in seeking challenges and accepting increased roles and responsibilities, as well as encourage people to do what they do good.

In summarization of Morning Star, Inc., it is a global market company that has become a global market leader where the people manage themselves.  Pretty much the working people do it all themselves; initiating their own procurements, hiring, etc.  This is an example of success by freedom versus control.  They are about reducing hierarchy in the organization and promoting freedom of management to the working level.    They feel that those that are not in the front line really don't understand the underlying problem, they also think that layers of management impede on the process.  In addition, they also allow the employee to have freedom with requisitions - the thinking is that if they can purchase something at that level at home and be responsible then why couldn't that apply at work. 

So as to compare Google to St. Luke's and Morning Star, Inc. to that of the style of leadership that has brought Google to the top.  As a comparison - Google operates using a smart, innovative and somewhat risky business model that has worked well.   Although the type of business is much different that the other two mentioned earlier, Google is a CAS.  They worked hard at brand building and built their brand in such a way that seemed to most almost unbelievable.  Google believed in unlocking company potential and allowing freedom for workers to be creative and forward thinkers. 

Their corporate leadership had the ability to think outside-the-box. As described on http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/ - there are ten things about Google to be true:  (1)  Focus on the user and all else will follow; (2) It is best to do one thing really, really well; (3) Fast is better than slow; (4) Democracy on the Web works; (5) You don't need to be at your desk to need an answer; (6) You can make money without doing evil; (7) There's always more info out there; (8) The need for information crosses all borders; (9) You can be serious without a suit; and (10) Great just isn't good enough. 

Google's mission statement "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" and their corporate culture is that the people make the company.  They are known to hire people who are smart and determined and the characteristics they look for in people is not always experience but instead their abilities.  They have an open culture and everyone's ideas are welcomed - and the people are comfortable providing their ideas.  Their infrastructure offers and encourages interaction at all levels.

First of all, I cannot say that I have been affiliated with any organizations like that of that to Morning Star and St. Luke’s, nor of Google.  Most of my career was working as a civil servant, supporting the Department of the Navy (Don) then retired and now working as a contractor, for a small business company still supporting DoN.

As a civil servant supporting DoN,  I basically supporting “a system”; a very “complex system” composed of much hierarchy, oligarchy, and centralized.  There was not much opportunity of CAS while I was employed at DoN.  You see, when you work for the government, it is governed by many rules, policies, authorities, etc.  Right before I retired, they were moving to high-performance teams, Lean Six Sigma, etc.  However, were still functional under the more moderate, traditional method of leadership; hierarchical.

I am now a contractor, 12 years after retiring from the government and still supporting DoN.  One thing that I have noticed as I reflect, the government is also starting to transition – but it takes a long time for such a complex system known as the “government” to transition to anything; typically being behind the curve in any complete change.  It is like moving an elephant.  Unfortunately, by the time they can convert to something they are already behind the curve.

To focus on where I am today, I support a small business, minority, female owned company that is in its 14^th year of existence; still supporting DoN. 

From the time I started here, I continually talk with the regional Vice President (VP) with respect to ideas.  I have learned from my career past that you have to find ways to try to get your ideas across and also across to the right person(s).  So, in my recent journey of finding an individual that I could acquire a mutual professional relationship was VP, Steve.  It was quite obvious that he was a person that had great insight to the company, also has a report with CEO and a most noteworthy modern day approach to leadership.

I also knew that he also recently pursued additional Master’s in Leadership and was very savvy on the modern day approach to leadership.  I recently spoke with him for a few minutes to talk about the company and also see his perspective for strategy formulation from our company perspective, and as to compare and contrast.

 
VP Steve has been with the company for eight of the 14 years of its existence.  He has been a tremendous asset to the CEO in that he has been successful at influencing CEO and more Senior VPs to trust in him and have adopted many of his ideas for changes to the company.  Unfortunately, our company is very hierarchical and still hiring middle managers.

Our current CEO was a local female “home girl” that decided to start-up a contracting business predominantly supporting the government business.   She is very savvy, business smart; but has limited formal education on leadership.  However, we have been slowly moving to a more cross functional way in which we do business. 

I scheduled a meeting with VP Steve.  He really is a people person; genuine and cares both about the company and about the people.  One of the inherent problems that plagues our company is that all the leadership and managers have been forced to engage and devote a large percentage of their time on new business and future work captures; leaving little time to make qualitative/quantitative changes for the people or current organizational changes.  VP, Steve has just recently been diagnosed with Lymphoma cancer and going through treatments.  So this is my lead in on how my discussions went with him:

First, I never go in to meet with him without some ideas written down that I have had in mind that I would like to share; never want to miss an opportunity to get in some of those while I have a few minutes with him.

As usual, always cordial and open-door policy.  He provided me his thoughts on how he has tried on numerous occasions to promote ideas of change to the CEO with no prevail.  Most of these ideas are to instill a corporate culture that fosters a working environment that promotes productivity, creativity, freedom, innovation, etc.  He has also been trying to find ways to develop career-tracks, mentoring and shadowing programs.  He too has seen a low morale and dysfunctional areas in our organization; including stove-pipe functional areas that need changed to the more modern approach; polyarchy.  As a result of our meeting, he has asked me to put a brief to together that he can present to the CEO.   

In summary, it is obvious that most of the current companies that are on the top or are on the leading edge of technology, are those that have grasped and embraced CAS.  This is another reason as to why it is so critical for all current and future leaders of the world to also embrace the modern approach to leadership and to clearly understand the implications by not adopting the newly proven approach.  It also has made me realize that the system in which I am integrated called the "government" has lesser chances of really adopting this methodology.  This is very concerning when you really think deep into the implications of the government over time.  Especially when current scholars in the field make the comments that you need to "adapt or die".

A633.2.3.RB_Butterfly Effect_Reece_Wathen_Sandra

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.58).  Small changes over time gain a big effect…   Identify 2 examples where “small changes yield large results” in your organization.   There are many areas in my organization in which a few slight changes could be implemented that would produce large results.  Based on this weeks' readings, this could be seen as what is  called “the Butterfly Effect”.    To explain this effect a little further before providing my two examples of how I think it could be applied and benefited to my organization.  The "Butterfly Affect" basically is a theory and logical equations that originated back in 1972, and when graphed resemble a butterfly.  These equations represent the affects of small change on producing large results and basically is the result of the effort you put in to something; sometimes called "catalytic mechanisms".   So let's take a look at how I think some simple changes to my organization can yield large results. First, I must tell you that I am a type "A" personality and a people person.  So, some of my priorities of change are those that affect the workforce.   There are several policies and practices in our company that hinder creativity, innovation, and empowerment to the employees.  In addition, there is lack of special programs and corporate culture that impedes employee professional growth.  In essence, morale is low and productivity is adversely affected.  Unfortunately, leadership is naive to this rapidly developing deficiency in their corporate approach, as well as, trapped in the traditional style of leadership where power is dominance.   A good example of this is if the company would change their practices to include a shadowing/mentoring program for the entry and junior level workforce it would be a win/win situation.  On numerous occasion I have tried to encourage leadership to adopt such a program and explained the benefits.   I have even recently volunteered to take the program on for the whole company as I can clearly see the great extent of the benefits for the small investment of time.   It seems that leadership is so focused on new business and capturing new contracts; caught in a paradigm and they have neglected the workforce; more so the lower level employees that need nurturing.  I have noticed that the lower level employees are not happy, seem frustrated, and do not see a very bright future from a professional growth perspective.   It is a very simple change that would create an environment for career growth and the ability of this individuals to have hands on mentorship with those that are more seasoned employees.  It would also give them incentive to follow in the steps of the role models.    The investment is less monetary and more of just time.  It is a small change that over time will create an environment for learning, a feeling of self-worth, and increased productivity, as well as developing the youth for future responsibilities in which the company will be able to benefit from.  It also would instill a change in the perceived negative corporate culture and provide the company with a more diverse workforce from which to build a more effective organizational framework - allowing the people to evolve.   Another example is that rather than our company becoming more decentralized and empowerment to the people, it is going in the opposite direction.   In fact, those in leadership positions have started having closed door policy and clear hierarchy in their reporting requirements.   It is creating a very stifled environment,  loss of innovation and ideas, socially confined and limited team interaction.  If the CEO could take a different approach with the corporate vision and refocus the organization to allow for the workforce to have more freedom in their daily work and fear of operating in a hierarchy structure.  Leadership should shift its focus on empowering their people to be innovative, creative and foster an environment that instills productivity.    This investment is also less monetary and more of changing corporate strategies.  It is a simple change that over time will provide such an integrated approach horizontally across the organization and provide long-term benefits to the organization and the people.  Another win/win solution that is simple to institute.