A633.2.2.RB_CliffordMarc

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

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

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





“Complexity suggests many interconnecting parts each affecting each other in an open interactive and iterative process which cannot be controlled or fully predicted”  (Obolensky, 2016).  Many organizations today operate in a complex environment.  This complexity has been enhanced by modern technology in numerous ways.  For example, information is available at our fingertips; with just a few clicks on a keyboard or a smartphone, I can learn detailed information about a business; their operating practices, and their environmental and fiscal responsibility.  In addition, modern technology has made it possible to locate detailed reviews about a company’s products and performance within just a few minutes.  With modern transportation capabilities it truly is a world wide market.  There is no need for me to go to the Mom and Pop operation here in town when I can have products delivered to my home from anywhere in the world within just a few days.  It truly is a complex environment, and most experts agree that complexity will increase in coming years (IBM, 2010).

However, according to Obolensky (2016), “Complexity, and the dynamics that drive it, are discoverable.”  A basic understanding of the theories of complexity science can help today’s leaders understand the complex environment in which they operate.  Allen (2011) stated that “A series of observations from the study of nonlinear dynamics and complex systems is scientifically well established and relevant to our discussion,” and “the behavior of [these] complex processes can be quite sensitive to small differences in initial conditions.”  This initial conditions sensitivity has been alternatively termed the butterfly effect.

In 1961 mathematician and meteorologist Edward Lorenz was working on a mathematical model of the weather.  He ended up with twelve differential equations that took into account different variables including wind, atmospheric pressure, and temperature.  On one particular day Lorenz wanted to re-examine a set of data that he had previously analyzed.  After he ran the computer model for the second time he realized that the end result was dramatically different from the initial model he had previously run.  The following image is a sample of Lorenz’s two runs.  The divergence in the two lines starts off very small, but by the end they are completely different.

After examining the data Lorenz found the source of the discrepancy; the printout from the first run of the computer model contained only three decimal places, whereas the computer’s memory stored up to six decimal places.  To save time Lorenz had started the second run of the computer model from the midpoint, using data that was printed out from the first run.  The tiny discrepancy, the third to the sixth decimal places, led to a completely different outcome (Bradley, 2010).  Obolensky stated that “Lorenz made an accidental but very significant discovery - that a very small change within a complex system (such as weather) can produce a very large difference to what would have otherwise happened” (Obolensky, 2016).  This is known as the butterfly effect.

Within the organization that I work for there have been a few “small changes . . . which yielded large results” (Obolensky, 2016).  First is a change to a management position and second, a change to the leave policy.

About eighteen months ago the director of operations was replaced.  The man who took the job is completely different from men who have held the position in the past.  He is much more personable and he seems concerned about each individual.  He asks how your family is when he speaks to you.  Past directors have kept it “all business,” which has made them seem uncaring. He admits that he is fallible and has weaknesses, and he has a bit of a self-deprecating sense of humor.  Past directors have tried to maintain an image of impeccability which has made them seem unauthentic.  Past directors have used command and control leadership tactics, whereas the new director is empowering to those around him.  This change has had an impact on company morale.  I have even noticed that other managers have adopted some of his personality traits.  One flap of the butterfly’s wings has yielded large, positive, results.

Another example of a small change that has yielded large results is a recent change to the company’s leave policy.  Near the end of 2017 a new pay policy was released which changed the vacation time earnings.  Prior to the change employees earned ten days of vacation for the first fifteen years of employment, after which time we would earn fifteen days of vacation.  Fifteen years is a long time to wait to earn a third week of vacation!  However, in the most recent revision to the pay policy the third week of vacation is earned after ten years of employment.  I do not know what percentage of employees was impacted by this change.  I have just completed eleven years with the company, so this small change has a large impact on me!  This has increased my morale and helped me think of my position with the company as long term.  Whetten and Cameron (2016) indicated that more time away from work is a better motivator than increased salary.  That rings true with me!

A basic understanding of complexity theory can help me to know that it is possible to make sense of complex situations.  However, it is essential to step back and get a systems view as opposed to a component view.  Leaders who try to understand how the system interacts will know that fine tuning with innovation, creativity, and adaptation will be ever present.  As has been shown, even very minor adjustments can lead to large changes that have the potential to yield wonderful results.

References

Allen, P. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Complexity and Management. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Bradley, L. (2010). The Butterfly Effect. Retrieved from http://www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar/butterfly.html

IBM. (2010). Capitalizing on complexity: Insights from the global chief executive officer study. Retrieved from https://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?htmlfid=GBE03297USEN

Obolensky, N. (2016). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Taylor & Francis

Whetten, D. A. & Cameron, K. S. (2016). Developing management skills 9th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.

A633.1.2.RB_CliffordMarc

Image credit: resourcesforleading.com

We are surrounded by issues of leadership.  Leadership books and courses are more numerous now than ever before.  Leaders are under more scrutiny than they ever have been.  We seem fascinated by leaders in al spheres of life - and we also seem to have a different attitude from our forebears.

Here are some points to ponder:

Has your attitude to leaders changed in your life, and if so how?
If we take as a starting point the attitude to those in authority/leaders as held by your grandparents, and then look at those attitudes held by your parents, and then by you, and then by the younger generation, is there a changing trend?  If so, what is it?
Why do you think this has occurred?

Additionally, while we live in a world with more information about leadership and leadership practices why is it that we have an apparent gap in the quality of our leaders and how do you think we can close this gap?

As I reflect upon my life I do not feel that my attitudes towards leaders has changed dramatically.  When I was a child I was taught to respect my parents, elders, and authority.  I was taught that adults, who represent all authority figures to a child, were to be listened to, obeyed, and respected.  However, when I was younger I held this deference for experience and authority blindly.  I believe that the attitudes I hold as an adult toward leaders evolved out of the feelings of respect for adults that I held as a child.  My attitudes toward leaders have changed as I have gained experience. I still have high regard for leaders and authority, but my own experiences have taught me that they are not infallible.  I recognize now that they are human, and because of that they have weaknesses and flaws.  Although I believe that I do still have an “innocent until proven guilty” idea about leadership; I will give leaders my trust and confidence unless they show me that they are not worthy of it.

In general, I believe that there has been a fairly dramatic shift in attitudes about leadership over the last four generations.  I believe that the thoughts, feelings, and ideas that my grandparents (1920’s) held about leadership were probably similar to those held by my parents (1950’s).  I believe that both my grandparents and parents had traditional feelings about leaders; that they were to be respected and obeyed, that they had greater access to more current information, and that it was in an individual’s best interest to follow them.  I believe that somewhere between my parents generation (1950’s), and my own (1980), a dramatic shift in attitudes toward leadership began.  I feel that many of my own peers were not taught the same respect and deference that I was taught, and that people started to have an attitude of suspicion toward leaders.  I believe that the current generation that is just reaching adulthood generally does not have the same respect for leaders that the previous generations have had, and that many young adults today feel they cannot trust anyone in a position of leadership or authority.  They hold more of a “guilty until proven innocent” attitude.

This shift in attitudes about leadership over the last four generations has come, at least partially, as a result of “an explosion of knowledge” (Obolensky, 2016) and greater transparency in everything government, business, and individuals do.  The leader is no longer the subject matter expert.  Subordinates no longer have to rely on their leaders for information and knowledge.  Numerous high-profile scandals involving powerful leaders have left people feeling suspicious of leaders in general.  Events such as Watergate, Enron, and the AIG bailout and the heightened media attention they received make it possible for practically everyone, everywhere to learn details and form an opinion.  Previous generations had remained generally unaware of the details of such scandals and incidents, except for the information they were given.  24-hour cable news networks also critique almost everything that is said and done by government and business leaders and in a way they have conditioned people to be suspicious.

Snowden and Boone (2007), asked why traditional leadership techniques fail “even when logic indicates they should prevail?  The answer lies in a fundamental assumption of organizational theory and practice: that a certain level of predictability and order exists in the world.”  Snowden and Boone (2007) go on to suggest that “In the face of greater complexity today, however, intuition, intellect, and charisma are no longer enough.”  It seems that one of the major reasons there is a gap between the incredible amount of knowledge that exists about leadership and leadership practices and the quality of our leaders is precisely because of the overwhelming amount of information.  Obolensky (2016) suggests that in order to understand leadership one needs to understand the context in which leadership is practiced.  With so much information today there are nearly limitless different contexts in which a leader must lead, and in fact it is common for a leader to be acting in multiple context at the same time.  The context can even change without a leader’s awareness.

Another reason that a gap exists between the knowledge and information about leadership and the quality of leaders is that the business environment is evolving faster than ever before.  The techniques required to lead today change so quickly that by the time a leader learns about and applies current leadership practices and techniques, they are already obsolete.  This is not unique to the field of leadership.  “We have changed the context of leadership faster than we have changed our assumptions about what leadership actually is” (Obolensky, 2016).

I believe that the way for this leadership gap to close is for leaders to embrace the change.  Leaders need to recognize that traditional techniques are obsolete and learn from the current trends while they are developing.  The only way leaders can possibly learn current trends while they are developing is by empowering subordinates, encouraging a heightened and consistent flow of information, and becoming comfortable with change.  Leaders need to recognize that they are no longer the source of information, they are no longer the primary decision-maker.  Leaders today need to recognize trends and opportunities.

Although the definition of leadership has changed dramatically over the past few generations there is still a great need for skilled, knowledgeable, and qualified leaders in today’s constantly changing business climate.

References

Obolensky, N. (2016). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Taylor & Francis,

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76.