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.
No comments:
Post a Comment