The chaos game, although it has the air of "ice breaker" activities from group settings I've experienced or more so the leadership exercises given to us during cadet training, represents an interesting departure from the usual in terms of drills in collaboration. If nothing else, it provides something of a visual or reference points to what I think is some of Obolensky's main points with chaos theory. The game suggests to me that despite the apparent chaos that one sees upon first glance, and the prevailing notion that an entropy exists that moves things towards disorder, there is also an intrinsic state of order that individuals can find when given the opportunity to seek it out. In short, the game is a readily available demonstration that chaos theory can work. The trick, I think, is trusting the members involved enough to let them find that solution at their level.
What this implies to me in the context of strategy is that chaos theory can reinforce the eight principles that were discussed in this week's readings regarding strategic creation. For instance, if Obolensky hadn't given any parameters whatsoever to the group in the video, there would be multiple means of communication, people traveling about the room every which way, and in all likelihood they wouldn't even know what they were working toward. By contrast, with the limited directions they were given in terms of how they were allowed to communicate and what was require of them in terms of spacing in relation to reference points, the group succeeded. They didn't talk or use signals, but they knew what they had to accomplish and were free to move towards the given objective relatively quickly without being micromanaged by the leader.
To me, this observation has further implications for both followers and leaders within an organization. The leader, if they understand and apply the eight principles of objectives, rules, boundaries, feedback, skill/will, freedom of action, purpose, and tolerance of ambiguity, can both give their followers an appropriate level of instruction while being able to effectively gauge if they have what's required to be successful. The followers, in turn, can develop the confidence to act independently and carry out the mission given to them as they see fit. The chaos game and chaos theory arguably reinforces many of the key lessons about strategy, in keeping it just specific enough to give the vision of an end state, but flexible and broad enough that followers can thrive in a seemingly chaotic and difficult situation. Almost paradoxically, chaos theory recognizes the disorder, but also can give a sense that things can work out fine.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Sunday, April 20, 2014
A633.4.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Considering the readings from Obolensky, as well as the other selections for this week, what seems to be happening is a greater demand for leaders to be almost omnipotent, knowing everything about what happens under their organization. Why this is happening can vary from case to case, but generally speaking this may be due to the higher profiles leaders have in being credited for successes and failures in their organizations, whether it be successes such as Apple or Google, or any number of fallen or organizations hitting upon hard times such as Chrysler and GM. In either case, it is the senior leader that is in the spotlight of media and society, being hailed either as a genius or fraud as they are held accountable for what has transpired in the organization. Additionally, Obolensky seems to be getting at the concept of a "flat" organization in his writing, something I've seen discussed in other courses as essentially giving greater empowerment to subordinates to ask questions or share knowledge in order to cultivate a diversity of ideas and increase engagement in the organization's activities.
In the case of my organization, it is expected in a multitude of ways that the leader is credited with all successes and failures. If something is botched, I'm held responsible and am expected to fix it. If something goes well, even though I may have never touched the keyboard or executed the planning process, I can take credit for the purposes of awards or annual performance reports. It is even told to use in multiple forms of mentorship that we are ultimately responsible for whatever happens, even if we delegate. In that sense, we are running into the risks inherent to a traditional hierarchy. At the same time, we also have built into our service culture the idea of innovation and not settling for business as usual. There are mechanisms by which the lower tiers can pass up ideas or (tactfully) challenge questionable leadership policies and plans. Officers are expected to engage with their senior enlisted, and all ranks know that the younger enlisted personnel are expected to have hands on knowledge and technical expertise. To make things even more interesting, there's even something of an unwritten expectation for a healthy duty section that the officer will provide top cover for their section (e.g. giving the commander reasonable assurances issues will be resolved and thus buying time to work in relative peace), and the personnel will execute their duties and pass up information so as to bolster the officer's reputation and appearances.
Having said all of that, I don't believe there is much that needs to be done for promoting dialog and breaking down the leadership charade, as there already exists a certain dichotomy for polyarchy type organizational functionality under the framework of a traditional hierarchy. Having said that, there are unique challenges for leadership dynamics and organizational strategy. In most cases, commanders rotate about every two years...this means that besides different leadership styles being introduced to an audience where a fair portion may have already had one or two previous leadership climates, any long term strategy needs to be especially robust. If a strategy involves a plan that has a more limited lifespan of a year, perhaps two, its fairly sure the plan will carry out. However, anything extending further will need to have enough structure so as to maintain continuity with existing personnel, while also having just enough flexibility to accommodate not only changing work conditions, but also changing leadership climates. On that note, that could well make for the groundwork of truly excellent strategy...something that endures throughout time and defines an organization, no matter who specific members may be at a given time, while still ensuring long term success and survivability.
Resources
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
In the case of my organization, it is expected in a multitude of ways that the leader is credited with all successes and failures. If something is botched, I'm held responsible and am expected to fix it. If something goes well, even though I may have never touched the keyboard or executed the planning process, I can take credit for the purposes of awards or annual performance reports. It is even told to use in multiple forms of mentorship that we are ultimately responsible for whatever happens, even if we delegate. In that sense, we are running into the risks inherent to a traditional hierarchy. At the same time, we also have built into our service culture the idea of innovation and not settling for business as usual. There are mechanisms by which the lower tiers can pass up ideas or (tactfully) challenge questionable leadership policies and plans. Officers are expected to engage with their senior enlisted, and all ranks know that the younger enlisted personnel are expected to have hands on knowledge and technical expertise. To make things even more interesting, there's even something of an unwritten expectation for a healthy duty section that the officer will provide top cover for their section (e.g. giving the commander reasonable assurances issues will be resolved and thus buying time to work in relative peace), and the personnel will execute their duties and pass up information so as to bolster the officer's reputation and appearances.
Having said all of that, I don't believe there is much that needs to be done for promoting dialog and breaking down the leadership charade, as there already exists a certain dichotomy for polyarchy type organizational functionality under the framework of a traditional hierarchy. Having said that, there are unique challenges for leadership dynamics and organizational strategy. In most cases, commanders rotate about every two years...this means that besides different leadership styles being introduced to an audience where a fair portion may have already had one or two previous leadership climates, any long term strategy needs to be especially robust. If a strategy involves a plan that has a more limited lifespan of a year, perhaps two, its fairly sure the plan will carry out. However, anything extending further will need to have enough structure so as to maintain continuity with existing personnel, while also having just enough flexibility to accommodate not only changing work conditions, but also changing leadership climates. On that note, that could well make for the groundwork of truly excellent strategy...something that endures throughout time and defines an organization, no matter who specific members may be at a given time, while still ensuring long term success and survivability.
Resources
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
A633.3.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Reading through Obolensky's description of common traits in organizations operating off a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) model, I immediately thought how much of the descriptions echoed what I'd read in previous classes about flat organizations....generally informal hierarchy, and for what little formal hierarchy there is, it runs more flat and dynamic and the environment has a greater emphasis on the open sharing of information and holding individuals accountable (Obolensky, 2010). I had previous written about one of my favorite game development companies, the Valve Corporation based out of the greater Seattle, WA area. Although more well known for hit gaming franchises such as Half Life and Counter Strike, they are also known in business circles for their unorthodox business practices, such as having very little in the way of formal supervisor/subordinate relationships and giving every employee to freedom to pick or start a project and quite literally roll their desk over to wherever the rest of a self-formed team is working. Even more interesting is how employees get input into what their peers get paid. (Kelion, 2013)
This is one of several examples of organizations that don't operate off of a traditional hierarchy. Thinking about these ideas in relation to my organization is interesting, for the military is fraught with traditional hierarchy for better or for worse. Indeed, there is well over 200 years of tradition dictating that there be a chain of command and that it is followed...having said that, this isn't necessarily always the case, and indeed, there is a certain expectation of there being power in the lower ranks. Although officers hold formal authority, we're still guided to look to our enlisted personnel for technical expertise, and the official Air Force Pamphlet on the enlisted force structure even explicitly states that senior enlisted personnel will mentor young officers in their development.
Having said that, while I think there will never be a day my organization moves towards an informal hierarchy, I think we will all be cognizant of the impact that every member of the organization brings to bear, and we already have a strong culture of sharing information and ideas, and holding individuals accountable for their actions (for better or for worse). We possess something of a dual cultures that combines traits of a traditional hierarchy regarding decision making and accountability, while also embracing the creativity and problem solving traits of a polyarchy type organization. The most appropriate action moving forward, I think, is to continue to leverage up and coming communication technologies to facilitate the sharing of ideas, and to continue to foster the dual culture that respects the time tested chain of command while motivating our personnel to put their ideas out there. It wasn't that long ago the Air Force did this for initiatives such as the "Every Dollar Counts" campaign, which invited all members, regardless of rank or career field, to submit ideas to leadership on how the service could curb spending. To continue to do this would be greatly beneficial for the organization, and potentially beneficial to other organizations with whom we execute our missions.
Kelion, L. (2013, September 23). Valve: How going boss-free empowered the games-maker. In BBC. Retrieved April 13, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24205497
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
This is one of several examples of organizations that don't operate off of a traditional hierarchy. Thinking about these ideas in relation to my organization is interesting, for the military is fraught with traditional hierarchy for better or for worse. Indeed, there is well over 200 years of tradition dictating that there be a chain of command and that it is followed...having said that, this isn't necessarily always the case, and indeed, there is a certain expectation of there being power in the lower ranks. Although officers hold formal authority, we're still guided to look to our enlisted personnel for technical expertise, and the official Air Force Pamphlet on the enlisted force structure even explicitly states that senior enlisted personnel will mentor young officers in their development.
Having said that, while I think there will never be a day my organization moves towards an informal hierarchy, I think we will all be cognizant of the impact that every member of the organization brings to bear, and we already have a strong culture of sharing information and ideas, and holding individuals accountable for their actions (for better or for worse). We possess something of a dual cultures that combines traits of a traditional hierarchy regarding decision making and accountability, while also embracing the creativity and problem solving traits of a polyarchy type organization. The most appropriate action moving forward, I think, is to continue to leverage up and coming communication technologies to facilitate the sharing of ideas, and to continue to foster the dual culture that respects the time tested chain of command while motivating our personnel to put their ideas out there. It wasn't that long ago the Air Force did this for initiatives such as the "Every Dollar Counts" campaign, which invited all members, regardless of rank or career field, to submit ideas to leadership on how the service could curb spending. To continue to do this would be greatly beneficial for the organization, and potentially beneficial to other organizations with whom we execute our missions.
Kelion, L. (2013, September 23). Valve: How going boss-free empowered the games-maker. In BBC. Retrieved April 13, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24205497
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
A633.2.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
The Butterfly Effect is always an interesting point of discussion, particularly now knowing some more about the origins of the term. To recap, it is something of a reflection and a word of caution on how a seemingly small or insignificant event or difference can have major effects either in the future or in an interconnected area. This can be said for physical structures, organizational practices, or even the actions of one person or otherwise. Obolensky explained it well
In my own organization, we've had some of our own instances of the butterfly effect coming to play. I often use the example of a co-located help desk our unit stood up when I first arrived that sits with our client unit personnel. At first it was simply intended to shorten the response time for our technicians to respond to problems while also better gathering metrics for our organization. However, given time, we eventually found ourselves struggling to find manning for the position and motivate people to sign up, which soon created some stir within our unit. Then, over time there was a greater expectation of prompt customer service, even for odd non technical issues such as fixing floor tiles. Here we are three years later, and the expectations of the position and the supporting office has increased exponentially, with several more personnel closely involved and a great deal of time and energy spent on assembling informational briefings and constantly recreating training products and procedures for a position that is inevitably subject to change and can't perform effectively when confined to a checklist. Although it has created a lot of administrative hassle, it can also be said that it enhanced our working relationship with our clients, both halves have better situational awareness, and our combined organizations can do our jobs better.
I can also attest that even a relatively subtle change such as office reorganization that impacted, to some measure, how people interact. There was a period of time where we had all of us junior officers working relatively close together in the same area. Although we were bit right next to all of our workcenters, we still had decent command and control, and had the benefit of random conversations and friendly interactions to help bolster our synergy and keep us all on the same page. Not that long ago, we've moved our offices around and dispersed around our building. We did gain from this in that now we had what would be considered dedicated workcenter areas rather than having them mingled and spread out, thus allowing us to have ready access to all of our people at any given time. However, that removed opportunities for us officers to mingle together, creating somewhat of a damper on our day to day interactions, but of greater note it became more difficult for us to keep tabs on what everyone else was doing (and subsequently be aware of any possible impacts on our workcenters) without a conscious effort to go visit. We're still able to get things done, but there seems to be a bit more disorder or information delay involved before we can really put any joint efforts into action lately.
Overall, having read through the material several times now, I'm fixing upon the general theme that complexity isn't necessarily a bad thing, and may even be helpful to consider when dissecting a situation. It's also interesting to consider how it may not take sweeping changes in order to have great effect upon an organization, and that if there really is an underlying order within disorder, it gives added impetus to seek a solution when presented with what may appear to be a very difficult problem.
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
In my own organization, we've had some of our own instances of the butterfly effect coming to play. I often use the example of a co-located help desk our unit stood up when I first arrived that sits with our client unit personnel. At first it was simply intended to shorten the response time for our technicians to respond to problems while also better gathering metrics for our organization. However, given time, we eventually found ourselves struggling to find manning for the position and motivate people to sign up, which soon created some stir within our unit. Then, over time there was a greater expectation of prompt customer service, even for odd non technical issues such as fixing floor tiles. Here we are three years later, and the expectations of the position and the supporting office has increased exponentially, with several more personnel closely involved and a great deal of time and energy spent on assembling informational briefings and constantly recreating training products and procedures for a position that is inevitably subject to change and can't perform effectively when confined to a checklist. Although it has created a lot of administrative hassle, it can also be said that it enhanced our working relationship with our clients, both halves have better situational awareness, and our combined organizations can do our jobs better.
I can also attest that even a relatively subtle change such as office reorganization that impacted, to some measure, how people interact. There was a period of time where we had all of us junior officers working relatively close together in the same area. Although we were bit right next to all of our workcenters, we still had decent command and control, and had the benefit of random conversations and friendly interactions to help bolster our synergy and keep us all on the same page. Not that long ago, we've moved our offices around and dispersed around our building. We did gain from this in that now we had what would be considered dedicated workcenter areas rather than having them mingled and spread out, thus allowing us to have ready access to all of our people at any given time. However, that removed opportunities for us officers to mingle together, creating somewhat of a damper on our day to day interactions, but of greater note it became more difficult for us to keep tabs on what everyone else was doing (and subsequently be aware of any possible impacts on our workcenters) without a conscious effort to go visit. We're still able to get things done, but there seems to be a bit more disorder or information delay involved before we can really put any joint efforts into action lately.
Overall, having read through the material several times now, I'm fixing upon the general theme that complexity isn't necessarily a bad thing, and may even be helpful to consider when dissecting a situation. It's also interesting to consider how it may not take sweeping changes in order to have great effect upon an organization, and that if there really is an underlying order within disorder, it gives added impetus to seek a solution when presented with what may appear to be a very difficult problem.
Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)