A633.5.3.RB - Reflections on Chaos

This video is a real life representation of chaos theory in action. It is only a little over three and a half minutes long and well worth a watch. Especially if you would like any of this post to make sense.

From this video I think a few simple thoughts on chaos (not that chaos theory is simple) start to emerge as it relates to leadership. Simple and clear directions, self-directed participants, and trust in order/results are three concepts that immediately sprang to mind.

The directions were simple and clear. This may sound constraining but it is actually quite liberating. The followers are able to exercise a great deal of freedom within the boundaries of a few rules and having a few rules makes objective very clear. This allows followers to direct themselves towards objectives free of confusion and conflict. Many rules tend to conflict with each and the more rules are written to clarify the worse it can actually become. The old adage, "keep it simple, stupid" can be applied to chaos theory and leadership.

The participants are self-directed. This is almost self-explanatory. Within the framework of the few simple rules the participants were free to decide their own paths. So it is in leadership, allow people to flow towards their destinations without a great deal of hindrance or constraint and solutions will manifest themselves; often more quickly than had a leader meddled with the process.

The third thought I want to touch upon was that "leader" had to trust in the underlying rules of chaos theory to work and that the participants would produce the optimal result. The rule, of course, being that complex systems left to produce their own results will tend produce the best result in the shortest amount of time. That is a very brief statement of the foundation of leadership and chaos theory. There are obviously other facets that must be present for any complex system to be sustained but those facets are dedicated to providing the energy or environment for that foundation to build upon.

I do want to be clear on another point. To simply give a few directions and step out isn't the idea, true laissez-faire environments are (in my opinion) nothing more than pipe dreams. Every system needs a certain amount of constraint or framework in which to operate. Chaos theory in leadership is no different, though I believe the quality and skill of the followers determines the success of chaotic leadership far more than the leader.

A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Why do you think the shift in leadership is occurring (to complex adaptive systems and flatter structures) and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization?  List three reasons that support or refute this position.

I think like any system or school of thought, leadership will change over time. It's inevitable. I believe the underlying reason for these changes is an attitude shift in the population as a whole, corporate changes to stakeholder management, and globalization.

There has always been a conflict between profit and labor. In past there was the attitude that labor was an expense to be minimized. Some companies still have this mindset. Wal-Mart has recently come under fire, as has McDonald's, for their labor practices. I tend to think these companies, being so big, make for easy targets but the problem still remains. They drive labor costs to the bare minimum. However, that may be counter-intuitive. Wal-Mart is posting losses and they blame economic forces for their hardships. However, if that were true the losses would be equal across retail as a whole, and they are...with exceptions. Costco, who is often praised for their labor practices is posting gains. Naturally there are several different market forces other than labor that decide profitability but it does point to an attitude shift in labor and since Costco is bucking retail trends it is obvious that generous labor practices do not damage a business on their own.

It is my opinion that the Internet has provided a platform for these practices to be viewed and discussed. If Costco can post gains with a very labor-friendly workforce why can't another company? When questions like these aren't answered to the satisfaction of the populace they take their business elsewhere provided they are capable of doing so. One of the reasons Wal-Mart refuses to change, other than profit, is that they have a captive market in a sluggish economy.

Hand in hand with this is stakeholder management. Stakeholder management is defined here and it sheds some light on new managerial practices. In short, it's about what's ethical not always what is profitable. It is starting to be seen that being ethical is also translating to profits. Let's be real, altruism isn't a guiding force in strategic decisions though it is a by-product of ethical decision making. Stakeholders are also employees, so executing proper stakeholder management means changing the leadership role to a more inclusive, bottom driven process.

Globalization, in the context of leadership shifts, means that companies, such as Coca-Cola that span continents need to trust the people in these countries to manage effectively. To be sure, Coca-Cola is sending workers to these countries to provide a framework and a mission but there has to be a sensitivity to local culture. In some ways this may mean that at the middle-management level decisions are left in the hands of those in-country. As a company grows it needs to trust sub-units to handle their own tasks. This can still lead to a top-down structure but it does still force the relinquishing of control to a certain degree. In order to maintain profitability a company needs to be flexible enough to respond to multiple stressors at once, and these only grow with size. Strict top-down structures are not known to be flexible. Globalization is forcing the divestment of authority.

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

I think the dynamics are already changing. Costco doesn't hire MBA's. They prefer to promote from below. As Obolensky mentions, a great deal of problem solving comes from the bottom up. By promoting from within those problem-solving skills are cultivated. I think this is double-edged sword as they run the risk of stagnant think and institutionalized group-think but it appears to be working well for Costco.

Overall, I think change will be very slow.

A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems

Complex adaptive systems (CAS) are beginning to form the nucleus of several companies. Nick Obolensky mentions Morning Star and St. Luke as two examples in his text Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Flat heiarchies, open information sharing, great emphasis on personal responsibility are all common features Obolensky says these companies share. This week I was to find a company that also used CAS and to also extract meaning for my organization.

A recent stay in the hospital and a second, more recent trip, to the emergency room led me to think about healthcare and CAS. A quick Google search turned up this article from the National Academy of Engineering regarding health care as a CAS.  They make a compelling argument and without reproducing their work here I can summarize why I agree.  

1. The health care industry is huge. Take a trip to the emergency room. How many parts are in motion? Ambulance crew, nurses, nurse aides, the doctor, maybe some clerical staff...that's just the obvious. What about behind the scenes? Cleaning staff for your room, lab technicians for your blood, staff to stock tools, sterilization of equipment, scheduling of MRI's and other equipment (MRI machines run on quantum theory by the way). Now expand to your insurance company and billing. The system has countless parts that all interact in their own way.
2. Hierarchies are relatively flat. Sure the doctor has the final say but nurses and technicians all have power. The doctor relies on the radiologist and the veteran nurse. The nurse relies on assistants and lab technicians. This means authority shifts from person to person and the players involved must trust each other
3. If done correctly the system is self-correcting. Lab work is done, information gathered, results are generated. Even in the event of a system failure (death of a patient) there are resources dedicated to finding out why and generating a results to aid in the prevention of future deaths.
4. There is no main point of control. Sure hospitals have administrators and doctors but control is fluid. Control shifts as a patient is in various rooms. There may be a framework in place to guide treatment but ultimately the locus of control is dependent on variables that often change.

When you stop and think about how massively complex healthcare can be just for a trip to the emergency room you can get a feel for how the system may start to exhibit traits of chaos theory and complexity science. Personally I think it's amazing it all works as well as it does. 

My organization responds to the whims of politicians and it is very hierarchical in nature. Applying complexity science to such an organization is difficult. The system is strangled by concerns that are often without form, by which I mean they are chained to opinion rather than fact. The foundation is shaky when it is dedicated to the whims of voters that, quite frankly, may or may not have any idea what they are talking about. I have made it clear in the past that opinions that are not based on verifiable information are not as valid as opinions that are. But isn't that the essence of complexity theory? What a mass of voters may or may not do is sometimes hard to predict. As Obolensky tells us, we have to go with these ebbs and flows. Therein lies a paradox. The system is chained to a chaos theory mass but in and of itself is very top-down and rigid. It actually makes very little sense. Chaos theory is part of quantum mechanics and as the great Richard Fynman said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." 

A633.2.3.RB - Butterfly Effect

Whomever first coined the term "The Butterfly Effect" never worked for the government. Small changes don't really lead to big changes as changes never happen in the first place. Bureaucratic inertia pretty much brings any real change to a grinding halt. It's unfortunate as see, from within the beast, a great capacity to do bigger and better things.  Every change requires a committee, every committee wants a study, every study needs another committee to figure out how to study whatever it is they are supposed to be studying in the first place. It's maddening.

But let's assume you manage to get something changed. A few months ago I proposed a switch to a digital file search system (our files "searches" are really matching seekers to jobs in a database. As a job comes into the office we search the files to find matches) in an effort to reduce paper usage and save on time. In the past people would have to print copies of files needing searching and deliver them to various people around the office. I proposed saving these as a .pdf file in a central location and the people responsible for searching the files would be able to access them. It was a small change and it actually wasn't too hard to implement. The managers are supportive of internal changes that make the office more efficient. However, that's where it stopped. Our office saves money on paper and time but the change never trickled anywhere else. Even internally, there were not many ripples from this change. Entrenched thinking is difficult to change.

I think that each system is unique even though they are built upon the same rules that govern any complex system. Some systems are more resistant to change than others. In these cases, smaller changes see their effects diluted as more and more layers of resistance are piled on top of one another. I think this is incredibly dangerous as change is the only way to survive in any environment. This isn't to say that governmental agencies do not provide a good service. I think that what the people in my office accomplish is amazing. However, things aren't always done efficiently or with the best practices available. I have seen some new thinking in a few agencies with whom I partner and I believe that change is happening. However the old guard still clings to out dated processes because I believe they feel if those processes change than they themselves will become outdated.

This need not be the case, people must be open to change; be open to the unconventional! This may mean taking some risks but that's OK! We learn from our failures, if we are smart, much more than we do our successes. Success after success can breed hubris, failure should foster introspection and systems analysis. When the people become more accepting of change I think that we will see more of the Butterfly Effect in agencies where change is an abstract concept rather than a reality.

A633.1.2.RB - Leadership Gap

Leadership and attitudes towards leadership change, or should change, as new theories are validated however this isn’t often the case. Below I am asked a series of questions regarding those changes.

1. Has your own attitude to leader’s changed in your life?

I have grown more distrustful of leaders as a general rule.  To be honest I have had some great managers and some not so great managers. However, the bad leaders tended to have qualities like dishonesty, turf guarding, stubbornness, backstabbing, or plain intellectual dishonesty. Those are tangible traits that the good managers in my life do not have. They have tended to be more transformational leaders or charismatic leaders with transformational (though not fully transformational in and of themselves) qualities.  Once again these are tangible traits. And I’ve had more good managers than bad. So why my attitude change?

When I look at leadership on a national level I get a bit more discouraged. The constant attacks on proven science by people that seem to either ignore or not care what the term scientific theory actually means are some of the most egregious broaches of leadership I can find. In this “Age of Information” confirmation bias is easier than ever. If I want to find information that tells me climate change is a hoax I can certainly find it. Of course, such information is wildly inaccurate, but that’s ok. I’m not looking to learn, I am looking to have my preconceptions validated. This has led me to believe that not opinions are created equally. If an opinion is grounded in ignorance or factually incorrect information than that opinion is not valid and shouldn’t be considered.

Some would call this an arrogant approach to leadership but if we are making choices that affect the lives of millions of people wouldn’t we want those choices based on valid information rather than whatever makes you feel better?  On smaller scales such as an office or small team leadership such concerns are not as important but it does matter that leaders are making choices based on the best evidence available. My attitude has changed because I don’t feel that leaders are making choices based on actual evidence but instead on massive levels of confirmation bias.

2. Is there a changing trend in attitudes towards leaders across generations?

I think this is a harder question to ask. This is pure opinion as for every new generation there are questions about what they either are or aren’t doing in comparison to previous generations. Attitude shifts are internal and people tend to seek out those that have similar attitudes. If I view leadership with a more cynical view than my parents it stands to reason I will find people with similar attitudes and reinforce my perception of leadership. Likewise for someone that doesn’t perceive an attitude shift. You can find evidence of people distrusting politicians ever since politicians were a thing. The same thing can be said for an innate distrust of leadership. Slogans such as “Don’t trust anyone over 30” have been around since the 1960’s or earlier. The 1950’s saw a counterculture form around rock and roll. These are not isolated occurrences.  I think that people like to think that their distrust of leadership is something new but in reality the same wheel has been turning since the first caveman lead a group of cave-people into the wilderness.    

3. Why has this occurred?

This question assumes that there has been a shift in attitudes towards leaders. I’m not convinced there has been a shift. I think the Internet has made it possible for that distrust to have a louder voice. It has allowed countercultures to coalesce and share ideas. It has brought people together that may never have communicated in the past. This may have accelerated attitude shifts but I don’t think it has created attitude shifts.

4. 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?

Once again this question is making an assumption. There are plenty of influential leaders in the modern world that are doing great things. Take for example Pope Francis. I’m not a spiritual person but Pope Francis is turning heads with his compassionate and humble approach to leading the Catholic Church. Not everyone is on board with his changes. He has moved the dial from abortion and gay rights to compassion for the poor and unfortunate. It is a profound shift in thinking when compared to his predecessors and whether or not you agree with the Pope no is saying there is a gap in the quality of his leadership. If anything there is a gap in the quality of some of his followers. And that’s the rub.

Good leaders require good followers and vice/versa. It is a symbiotic relationship, a wheel that turns. There will always be people that distrust leaders and the Internet has given them greater power as it has allowed them to unite. I still don’t see this as a unique shift in attitudes but a unique shift in the power of the followers and that may be more important. I hope that with better and more powerful followers we can produce better leaders.